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 March 19, 2016, the Plaintiff, who had been under the influence of alcohol driving (on January 22, 2006 and October 8, 2012) twice and had been subject to the revocation of the driver’s license. On March 19, 2016, the Plaintiff driven D vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.050% in front of the street located in B, and was discovered to police officers while driving D vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.050%.

B. Accordingly, on March 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (license number: E) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle on March 19, 2016, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle on March 19, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 24, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) When considering the error of the respiratory measuring instrument, the Defendant’s instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise, even though the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of control cannot be said to be more than 0.050%. (2) At the time of a drinking test, the police officer in charge of the control was asked the Plaintiff’s personal information, and the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the driver’s license on two occasions due to the previous drinking driving, but did not notify the fact that the license was revoked on three occasions. If the control police officer notified that the license was revoked due to the three-time drinking driving, the Plaintiff was required to take a measurement by blood collection. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol measuring process, which served as the basis for the instant disposition, was erroneous in the above procedure.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3-4 of the judgment as to the first argument, a drinking test used in the process of measuring alcohol to the Plaintiff on the day of the instant case.