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 March 7, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired Class I ordinary drivers’ licenses, and Class I drivers’ licenses on July 23, 2008.

B. On the other hand, the plaintiff was discovered while driving under influence on May 24, 2002 and March 26, 2006.

C. On September 24, 2015, the Defendant revoked both the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license and first-class large driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s driving of a DNA car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.051% on the street in C front of 16:35 August 18, 2015, on the ground that: (b) the Plaintiff’s driving of a DNA car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.051%; and (c) the Plaintiff’s driving under the influence of alcohol on at least two occasions constitutes

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on October 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Considering the error scope of the drinking measuring instrument (±005%), the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level is highly likely to fall short of 0.05%, which is the standard for the detection of drunk driving, and the instant disposition causes serious harm to the livelihood of the Plaintiff and their family members, it is unlawful that the instant disposition was excessively harsh and abused and abused discretion. 2) The Plaintiff was found to have been driving a motor vehicle permitted to drive with the first-class ordinary driver’s license, and the Defendant also revoked the first-class large driver’s license that is not related thereto.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s error scope of the drinking-free measuring instrument (【0.05%, considering the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration is likely to fall short of 0.05%, which is the standard for the detection of drinking alcohol.