1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 26, 2012, at around 04:25, the Plaintiff, while driving a passenger car B, an underground car located in the Kimhae-si, was shocking from the Changwon tunnel to the discharge of oil balkh, etc., and the Plaintiff and three winners suffered heavy injury.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

After the instant accident, the Plaintiff was sent to the Emergency Center of D Hospital without food, and the police officer in charge collected the Plaintiff’s blood by a nurse using non- alcohol disinfection drugs and disposable injection equipment with the consent of C, on October 26, 2012, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s mother cannot perform the pulmonology measurement by a drinking measuring instrument around 06:05.

(hereinafter “the instant blood collection”). However, the police officer in charge did not obtain the Plaintiff’s consent in relation to the instant blood collection or obtain a warrant ex post facto from the court.

C. As a result of the appraisal of the Plaintiff’s blood collected from the instant blood collection by the National Scientific Investigation Institute, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was analyzed as 0.125%.

On March 6, 2013, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.125% and caused the instant accident.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 12, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 16, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant blood collection not only did it obtain the Plaintiff’s consent, but also violated the principle of due process without obtaining a warrant from the court.

Therefore, the result of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level assessment from the blood collection of this case is illegal.