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 December 19, 2017, around 22:00, the Plaintiff was found to have driven B vehicles while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.056% on the front of the 8 Masan-ro, Daegu Eastdong-gu, 26-ro 8, each other.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

On January 4, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of January 30, 2018 pursuant to Article 93(1)2 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff is a person who drives the instant drinking on not less than three occasions on the ground that the Plaintiff had a two-time alcohol level (0.05% of blood alcohol level on October 11, 2002, and 0.08.08.)

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s misunderstanding of facts is limited to 200 so-called so-called so-called alcohol; (b) the Plaintiff was driving after drinking alcohol from December 119, 2017 to December 21:30; and (c) drinking measurement was conducted at around 22:09 on the same day as the blood alcohol concentration rise; (d) so it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was at least 0.05% at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol. (ii) Although the Plaintiff abused and abused discretion but was not a substitute driver after drinking, it was caused to driving under the instant case; (c) the Plaintiff was transporting human parts and materials as the head of the working group of the landscape architecture construction company; and (d) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential for the Plaintiff’s treatment as the Plaintiff’s children with developmental disorder 3 specially under the special treatment.