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 August 3, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired Class 1 ordinary car driving license (license number B).

B. On August 1, 2014, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff driven a CK 3 car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.103% in a section of about 100 meters from the Young-gu Machina Mochina Complex to the front floor of the Juvenile Culture Center in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si. The Plaintiff was discovered to the police.

C. On August 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 17, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff.

On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but was ruled dismissed on October 14, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, 4, 8 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s final drinking time of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no ground for disposition is 3:40 on August 1, 2014, and even after ten minutes have passed from this, the Plaintiff’s measurement of drinking was conducted. In light of the Plaintiff’s drinking volume, the possibility that the alcohol level was excessive due to remaining alcohol in the mouth cannot be ruled out.

(2) In light of the deviation of discretionary power, the Plaintiff’s assertion of abuse, the circumstances leading to the pertinent drunk driving, the degree of alcohol at the time, the distance of drunk driving, the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s occupation, and the situation in which the Plaintiff is faced, etc., the instant disposition was deviates from and abused the scope of discretionary authority.

B. (1) According to the judgment on the non-existence of the grounds for disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the non-existence of the grounds for disposition No. 6 was examined, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the non-existence of disposition No. 6 can be acknowledged as having complied with the formulation of water as water at the end of one hour after drinking and the measurement of drinking.

(2) The deviation of discretion and the assertion of abuse.