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 15, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of June 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.070% in blood alcohol level on the north-gu Bel on April 23, 2015, even though the Plaintiff had been under the influence of drinking three times.

B. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 21, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 16, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff was unable to be able to be faced with water before the alcohol measurement, and the Plaintiff was found to have taken a respiratory test without being immediately replaced while measuring four times in total due to an error of alcohol measuring devices.

As a result, the Plaintiff’s remaining alcohol ingredients and as soon as possible accumulated alcohol ingredients in the mouth led to a higher level than the actual blood alcohol concentration. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the level of drinking alcohol at the time of driving constitutes more than the criteria for revocation of driver’s license.

D. The Plaintiff was measured at 0.070% of blood alcohol level from the 4th measurement of alcohol level at the time of the measurement three times, and the Plaintiff demanded re-measurement. The Plaintiff did not notify the enforcement officer of the re-measurement as well as that he was able to re-measurement by blood measurement. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful.

Consolidatedly, the plaintiff operates an enterprise in charge of designing and supervising environmental facilities, and the plaintiff needs a driver's license for his business, and the plaintiff is an old mother's hospital that has inconvenience with dementia and old age.