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 May 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license as of May 14, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven C vehicles while under the influence of alcohol at the front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 00:01 on March 13, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven C vehicles while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.126% in front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was ruled dismissed on May 31, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was under contact to move a parked vehicle while drinking alcohol and prevented the Plaintiff from driving the vehicle. In light of the Plaintiff’s drinking volume, etc., the instant disposition based on the Plaintiff’s remaining alcohol content remaining in the drafting cannot be ruled out that the level of drinking alcohol remains excessive than the actual blood alcohol concentration is unlawful. (2) The Plaintiff’s inevitable contact with the Plaintiff to move the vehicle at the time of the instant case, and the Plaintiff was under control while driving the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s attempt to carry on the monthly cargo after transferring the name of his father, which would cause a enormous impediment to the livelihood when maintaining the instant disposition, is unlawful since the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff deviates from or abused discretionary power because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) According to the statement No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4-1 of the judgment as to the non-existence of the grounds for disposition, the plaintiff can be found to have been able to find the drafting as water at a time after one hour has elapsed since he was under the influence of alcohol and respond to the measurement of drinking. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.