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 November 30, 2016, around 02:30, the Plaintiff sustained injury, such as damage, etc. to the victim E, the victim F, and G, who had been under suspension pursuant to the new subparagraph, while driving a D leleber vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.080% at the front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C” in front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, due to a violation of the duty of safe driving by the victim E while driving the Dlera vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.080%.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On January 17, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 motorcycles) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.05%, and caused the Plaintiff to be injured due to a traffic accident (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 2, 2017, but was dismissed on April 11, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul No. 10 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On November 30, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition based on the blood alcohol concentration (0.080%) measured at around 03:05 on November 30, 2016. Considering that the Plaintiff’s final drinking time was around 02:20 to 02:25 on November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at around 02:30 on November 30, 2016, which is the Plaintiff’s driving time, was 0.05% or more. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was 0.05% or more, and thus, the instant disposition based on this premise is unlawful (i) the Plaintiff operates a restaurant along with his mother-child, and thus it is essential to drive the instant vehicle for the purpose of purchasing food materials.