1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on December 7, 1989, but was revoked on October 31, 1993 by causing a death or a serious traffic accident while driving alcohol on October 31, 1993. On May 1, 1995, Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B), Class 1 driver’s license on November 20, 1997. On May 16, 2018, at around 03:02, while under the influence of alcohol 0.124%, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.124%, and was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “the instant drinking driving”). From Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Plaintiff was driving from around the road to the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, about 17 km in the Esp-car’s volume from May 16, 2018.

B. On July 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving; (b) issued a disposition revoking the license of the vehicle driving stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Chapter 1 argues that the Plaintiff was exposed to the instant drunk driving, measured the blood alcohol level, and was subject to the breath test while measuring the blood alcohol level. The above assertion is that the Plaintiff included the alcohol level remaining in the Plaintiff’s entrance. As a result of the breath test, the disposition of this case based on the above measurement result was included in the purport that the disposition of this case was unlawful. 2) Chapter 2 - Part 2 - the Plaintiff abused discretion did not cause a traffic accident through the instant breath test, the Plaintiff used the ordinary breath test, and attempted to use the instant breath test even before the instant breath test was conducted. The possibility and risk of criticism for the instant breath test, and the Plaintiff’s business bus.