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 8, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of February 8, 2016 on the ground that: (a) even though the Plaintiff had a drinking alcohol (0.119% of blood alcohol concentration) on February 22, 2002 and a drinking alcohol (0.122% of blood alcohol concentration) on July 20, 2003, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol on December 29, 2015, on the following grounds: (b) around December 21:30, 2015: (c) the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.073% of blood alcohol concentration and was under the influence of alcohol on March 8, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on January 26, 2016.

【Unfounded facts, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) that the blood alcohol content of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol 0.073% is 0.073%, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the blood alcohol measurement, and thus, at the time of drunk driving, constitutes less than 0.05%.

(2) In light of the fact that the driver’s license for abuse of discretionary power is revoked, it is difficult to maintain a livelihood because he/she cannot drive sckes, etc., the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power because it is too harsh.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 3, 3, and 7 of the evidence Nos. 2-2-3, 3-3, and 7, the plaintiff was found to have been aware of the blood alcohol concentration at the above road on December 29, 2015, and as a result, the blood alcohol concentration at 0.073% was measured as a result of a blood alcohol level measurement at 21:41, which was 11 minutes after the driving of the vehicle. As alleged by the plaintiff, even if the drinking was terminated at 20:30 on the same day, it cannot be said that the alcohol level at 11 minutes at the end of the period, and since it was merely 11 minutes after the control, the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration at 0.23% or more during the above 11 minutes cannot be deemed to have increased rapidly. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

(2) Whether the discretion has been abused or abused.