1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On July 6, 2016, at around 02:30, the Plaintiff, while driving a coos car under the influence of alcohol, was driving a coos car and driving a coos car in front of the D frequency set up in C at the window of Changwon-si, caused an accident of shocking traffic facilities installed on the right side of the road, and returned the car to the site of the accident.

On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was in charge of an accident with the towing vehicle driver at the site of an accident, and was in charge of a alcohol measurement by the respiratory measuring instrument on July 6, 2016, according to the report of the towing vehicle driver on July 6, 2016, the blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.088%.

On July 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (as of July 19, 2016, Class 1, Class 1, Class 1, and Class 1 (Salvage) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of August 18, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the said car while under the influence of alcohol of 0.126% (the numerical value with which the Ramark formula was applied) of blood alcohol level.

On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 15, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class B Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s argument at the time of the Plaintiff’s final drinking is not around 01:00 on July 6, 2016, which was recognized by the Defendant when applying the Madmark formula, but around 02:30 on the same day. Since the Plaintiff returned home after the occurrence of an accident and went out from the house with the time when one disease, one disease, and one disease, etc. were added at the house, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration calculated by applying the Madmark formula cannot be deemed as the actual blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving. The Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to maintain his family’s livelihood by driving his/her vehicle while working in the Madmark.