1. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the license granted to Plaintiff on January 12, 2016.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, on January 12, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.10% at the forward of the three-distance distance in the Geum-gu Geumdong Children’s Center for Children, Daegu, Geumdong.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 29, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 19, 20 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) from December 16, 2015 to December 21:40, 2015, the Plaintiff driven an “B store” in which the Plaintiff performs the store management by drinking 3 residues of beer, and measured each blood alcohol concentration by means of blood collection at around 22:02 on the same day, and around 22:30.

However, as at the time of driving, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration increase immediately after drinking, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving shall not exceed 0.1%, which is the result of blood sampling measurement measured by blood sampling method. Moreover, at the time of blood gathering, the alcohol content was disinfected into the species of alcohol and the result of alcohol measurement was excessively excessive.

Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(2) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not drive under the influence of alcohol for at least nine years; and (b) the Plaintiff driven an exemplary vehicle without having paid traffic accidents for at least 17 years; (c) the Plaintiff is in need of a car driver’s license to maintain his livelihood; and (d) the Plaintiff’s revocation of a car driver’s license is the most serious threat to his family’s livelihood; and (b) the instant disposition was unlawful as it constitutes abuse of discretionary power

(b) Determination Doctrine, Gap evidence Nos. 4 to 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6 to 8, and 10 (including paper numbers).