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 October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 5 million (00,000,000 (0.226%) as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (M.206% of blood alcohol content) from the Jung-gu District Court on March 10, 2010, for the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (M.226%).

B. On November 28, 2017, at around 06:50, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles at the section of about 20km from the 251st century to the 705nd road in the Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, in a state of drunk alcohol content of at least 0.075%.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) against the Plaintiff on the date stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal within a legitimate period, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 13, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion (1) At the time of regulating drinking, the Plaintiff was not notified of the right to take a alcohol test from blood collection, or was notified of the right.

Even if the police officer did not believe that it constitutes a disposition of license suspension for enforcement officers at the time and did not do so, the police officer was practically deprived of the opportunity to take a drinking test due to blood collection.

As such, the instant disposition based on the drinking water level due to the pulmonary measurement is illegal, unjust, and thus, should be revoked, and ② there is no inevitable, human, and material damage to the Plaintiff’s livelihood and activity due to the occupation of the trees, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretion.

B. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged as a result of the Plaintiff’s deprivation of the right to measurement of drinking alcohol based on blood collection No. 1 by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the statement No. 3, i.e., the Plaintiff at the time of detection of drinking alcohol driving.