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 July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff, while driving a BMW car on July 15, 2014, caused a traffic accident that shocks traffic control apparatus on the front side of the Dgas charging station located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident.” The Plaintiff was subject to the alcohol alcohol measurement at around 04:05 on the same day when the fact that the Plaintiff was drunk during the course of investigating the said accident. As a result, the blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.126%.

B. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s second-class ordinary driving license as of September 7, 2014 by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on September 30, 2014, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 28, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 5 through 12, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of 0.126% of the blood alcohol level measured at around 03:00 on July 15, 2014, which was the final drinking time, from around 02:34, and around 03:0 on the same day, from around 05:0 on the same day, 65 minutes from the same day. Considering the Plaintiff’s drinking volume, drinking hours, driving hours, driving distance, and blood alcohol level measurement time, etc., it is illegal to conclude that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is more than 0.1%. However, the instant disposition is unlawful in view of the following: (i) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving was not determined to be more than 0.1%; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s license is closely against the drinking alcohol level; (iii) the Plaintiff did not drive under the influence of alcohol on once after obtaining the license;

B. 1) Determination of whether a method of measuring drinking alcohol is illegal or not is a drunk driving.