1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class B common) as of June 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a D low-priced car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.1% on the front of the road located in Tong-si B, through through through Young-si (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 11, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Plaintiff from April 7, 2016 to April 21:40, while driving alcohol after drinking alcohol, which was discovered at around 22:10 and was measured at around 22:31. As the result of the blood alcohol measurement conducted by the Plaintiff, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving is higher than the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving did not exceed 0.1%, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff deemed to drink until April 7, 2016, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of detection of drunk driving falls under at least 0.1%, which is the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, in full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was found to have taken a drinking test by the respiratory measuring machine around 22:10, on April 7, 2016, when the alcohol level was discovered; and (b) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of detection of drunk driving was found to fall under the criteria for revocation of driver’s license.

Even if it is not so, Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act shall be applied.