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 April 20, 2005, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.073% alcohol level, but the driver’s license was suspended. On November 29, 2008, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.081% of blood alcohol level but had the record of suspending the driver’s license. On August 25, 2018, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.05% of blood alcohol level 0.05% under the influence of alcohol level 0.0.05% of alcohol level at the gold village located in the Geumju-si-si, Jeonju-si.

B. Accordingly, on the date stated in the purport of the claim, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 1 large, class 1 large, and class 1 ordinary) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal within a legitimate period, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 13 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff demanded the police officers who want to take a drinking test to put their water in place to place their place of business, the police officers in charge failed to put the Plaintiff into place their place of business and take a drinking-water test. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful by regulating illegal drinking driving. 2) The instant disposition is unlawful, taking into account the Plaintiff’s occupation, the inevitable nature of driving for maintaining a livelihood, the Plaintiff’s family relationship, and the Plaintiff’s contribution to the society, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused the discretion.

B. According to the evidence No. 7 as to the allegation of illegality in the procedure for regulating driving 1 under the influence of alcohol, the term “injection marse” in the 1st century report on the circumstantial statement of the driver on August 25, 2018 against the Plaintiff is indicated as “in marse mar,” and thereafter, the term “the driver’s statement” can be acknowledged as having signed under the content that “the Plaintiff is true.”

The above facts of recognition.