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 August 7, 2015, at around 23:50, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.1%.

B. Accordingly, on August 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1 ordinary and Class 2 ordinary driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 20, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap No. 11, 12, Eul No. 1, 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion operates a restaurant to support two children after the divorce, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for his/her family’s livelihood, the Plaintiff’s disposition of the instant case is unlawful, considering various circumstances, including the fact that the distance of drinking driving is very short and its circumstances are taken into account, and that the blood collection was requested to the enforcement officer, but the blood collection was not conducted. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition is unlawful in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s blood content may lower the blood content; and (b) the Plaintiff’s blood content may lower the blood content.

B. First of all, according to the argument on the accuracy of blood alcohol content, the Plaintiff removed the remaining alcohol in the mouth 5 through 7, and the purport of the entire argument, the blood alcohol content was 0.1% measured by pulmonary measurement, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content was corrected to indicate a low amount of error, taking into account the error scope. The Plaintiff’s pulmonary measurement method measuring the blood alcohol content was in the state of correction. At the time of measuring blood alcohol content, the Plaintiff was notified that the Plaintiff can collect blood at the time of measuring blood alcohol content, but did not want to do so.