1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 04:40 on January 16, 2016, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.103% on the front road of Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, and was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.103% on the Plaintiff’s C SPP car level, and was under the control of the police.

B. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) for driving under the influence of alcohol as stated in the preceding paragraph against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on March 29, 2016, but the said claim was dismissed on or around June 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Considering 0.05% of the error scope of the drinking measuring instrument compared to Plaintiff’s drinking volume, it is difficult for the drafting to trust the blood alcohol level measurement level from the blood alcohol level conducted by taking a drinking test without having to be able to be able to be grounded. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level does not exceed 0.10% per day. 2) The Plaintiff is engaged in the Plaintiff’s inspection of all machinery, etc. in advance before the operation of the swimming pool after working at the sports center of D High School up to 4:45 per day. Thus, in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s life is essential in terms of maintaining Plaintiff’s livelihood, and there is a risk that the Plaintiff might disappear means of livelihood other than the above workplace to prepare medical treatment because the Plaintiff is treated with the pre-permanent cancer, etc., the instant disposition was abused by discretion.

B. Determination 1) The above facts of recognition, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 11 (including virtual numbers and the overall purport of arguments) are as follows, i.e., the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content measured by a drinking gauge at a level of 0.103% on January 16, 2016, which was found to be comprehensively considered in light of the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff’s drafting around January 16, 2016. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content measured at 0.103% during the police investigation process.