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 January 26, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II ordinary driver’s license, and driven a Class B passenger vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.114% while under the influence of alcohol on March 6, 2002, and was subject to a disposition of revocation of driver’s license on March 6, 2002. After obtaining Class I and II driver’s license, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of revocation of driver’s license on August 18, 2003 while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.07%.

B. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff, while driving a DM5 car while drinking alcohol, was confirmed to have been 0.078% of the blood alcohol concentration by the respiratory measuring device at around 22:37, at around 22:37, when the Plaintiff was subject to drinking control on the road 1525, south-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul.

C. On April 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the license for Class I and II ordinary motor vehicles (the date of revocation, April 28, 2014; hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was under influence of alcohol at least three occasions.

On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 3, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 9, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, 5, 7, 13, Eul evidence 14-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, until 22:27, the Plaintiff was taking a drinking test by a respiratory measuring instrument while the Plaintiff had 20 minutes of drinking after drinking only to the extent of 2 remaining alcohol.

At the time, the police officer did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to fluence, rejected the Plaintiff’s re-measurement request and the request for blood collection without reasonable grounds, and did not inform the Plaintiff of the fact that blood collection should be conducted within 30 minutes from the respiratory measurement, and did not look at whether the Plaintiff is a part of the business.