1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 3, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of March 2, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven Dworka car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.146% at the front of the Damna Golf Course located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu, on January 13, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) 23:32, Jan. 13, 2014 at the time of the instant case, while drinking alcohol from January 13, 2014 to 23:52, the Plaintiff conducted a re-measurement by a drinking measuring instrument without any guidance to engage in the breath of alcohol at around 23:50 on the same day, which is 18 minutes after the date. The Plaintiff’s remaining alcohol in the inside of the instant case resulted in a result higher than the actual blood alcohol concentration. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the level of drinking at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving constitutes at least 0.1% of the blood alcohol concentration, which is the criteria for the revocation of the driver’s license. (2) The Plaintiff did not take measures to refuse the breath and demand re-measurement even though the alcohol level was too high even after the alcohol level was measured and demanded for re-measurement. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3) The Plaintiff is in charge of business in the Textiles Sales Company, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential and thus making it impossible to drive the instant disposition. As such, the instant disposition is deemed to have a significant disadvantage that the Plaintiff suffered compared to the need for public interest, and thus, is unlawful as exceeding the discretionary power. (B) In this case’s determination on the first argument, as to whether the Plaintiff did not have been able to be able to become able to drive the instant disposition, considering the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in subparagraph 3-1, 2, and 4, the Plaintiff’s argument as to whether the Plaintiff did not have been able to become able to drive the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s oral statement and drinking driving