1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 27, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s license to drive a motor vehicle stated in the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol at around 21:10 on April 12, 2016,” which stated that “the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.126%.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on August 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff in violation of the procedure was indicated “100 days of the suspension of driver’s license” in the written notification of the disposition of driver’s license presented by the police officer in charge of drinking control and did not request a measurement of blood and body. If he had known that the license would be revoked, such as the instant disposition, the blood alcohol content would have been less than 0.1%, and if so, the blood alcohol content would have been less than 0.1%. In addition, the removal of the alcohol in the mouth before the pulmon measurement, even if it was required more due to the shortage of water as water 1ped, it was unlawful to measure the blood alcohol concentration.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is also unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff’s drinking-free abuse of discretionary power was merely the intention to park with a maximum of 300 meters of driving distance and not the intention to drive in full-time, but the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing its discretionary power.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. (1) According to the judgment Gap's evidence No. 2 as to the assertion of procedural violation, it is recognized that the prior notice of disposition of driver's license is wump in front of the phrase "100 days prior to the suspension of driver's license", but on the other hand, it is immediately above.