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 July 20, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 2 ordinary car driver’s license (B) on March 10, 201, and around 06:45 on May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.104% of 0.104% of blood alcohol level, caused a traffic accident leading to shocking road fluority while driving a vehicle for the Plaintiff’s wife’s cenzE300 on board from the street in front of the NAE located in the city of Sungnam-gu to the high speed of the headquarters of the same NAVber located in the Gu sperm-dong.

B. Accordingly, on June 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 4, 2016, but was dismissed on September 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 4

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s alcohol measuring instrument is likely to have an inherent measurement error, malfunction, or malfunction, and thus it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s drinking value exceeds 0.1%. 2) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s personal taxi transport business license is revoked when the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is revoked; (b) the Plaintiff suffers economic loss; and (c) the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is difficult; and (d) the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff excessively harshs the Plaintiff and abused its discretion.

B. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1) 5 and the entire arguments, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff’s dactology measurement method which was discovered by a drunk driving and measured by the respiratory method was in conformity with the quality standards of measuring instruments, as it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s dactology was in conformity with the fact that the correction was completed in the Road Traffic Authority on April 18, 2016 and that the numerical value of measuring instruments was adjusted to lower 5% by 5%, and that there was a possibility of an error, malfunction, or malfunction.