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 22, 2017, the Defendant issued a revocation of the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was driven on the front side of the treatment apartment in the Chang-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, on October 1, 2017, while under the influence of 0.073%, on at least three occasions.”

B. On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission), but rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on January 23, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 13, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged police officer notified the Plaintiff that he was subject to suspension of a driver’s license and gave up measurement by blood gathering, the drinking time and place of drinking on the notification of the result of the blood driving control, and whether he was using the oral administration. The actual drinking time was about 01:00 on October 1, 2017, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s alcohol concentration was increased in the enforcement time. According to the control time, the controlled blood alcohol concentration level cannot be trusted; the driving distance is less than 30 meters and is a simple drinking driver with no damage; the Plaintiff is in need of driving by working as an insurance business operator; and the Plaintiff’s livelihood and family members are unlawful in light of the fact that the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

B. (1) Determination (1) Each statement of evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8, the court’s significant fact (2017 Highest 10481), and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff asserted that the blood alcohol concentration increase season was measured on the premise that the last time of drinking was mistakenly stated, but it is difficult for the control police officer to arbitrarily specify the place or time of drinking without the Plaintiff’s statement. The Plaintiff’s “final drinking time” to the control police officer at the time, and around 22:00, Sept. 30, 2017.