1. The Defendant’s revocation of the license granted to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 20, 2015, at around 22:45, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a rocketing car from approximately 500 meters to the front road of the library located in the front of the library located in the same Dong on the roads adjacent to the Seodaemun-si, Seopopo-si; (b) on the same day, the Plaintiff was found to have been 0.052% of blood alcohol concentration as a result of a pulmonary measuring instrument at around 23:15; and (c) on January 21, 2015, at around 50:40, the Plaintiff measured the blood alcohol concentration by collecting the Plaintiff’s blood from the Seopo-si Medical Center and measuring the blood alcohol concentration at KRW 0.104%.

B. Accordingly, on February 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s second-class ordinary driving license as of March 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.104% of the blood alcohol content on January 20, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 16, 2015, but was dismissed on June 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff measured the blood alcohol content at the time of the first breath measurement on the day of the instant case at 0.052%, and refused to collect blood, but the blood alcohol content was 0.104% again by the police officer’s coercion, and the blood alcohol content was 0.104%. As above, the instant disposition based on the blood blood collection measurement was unlawful even when the process and measures of the breath measurement were to go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion. 2) Even if the instant disposition were not deemed unlawful due to the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary to lead to the Plaintiff’s livelihood, and the blood collection measurement value is relatively lower than 0.104%.