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 8, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired Class 1 ordinary driver’s license.

B. On October 7, 2016, at around 07:27, the Plaintiff driven a B-car at a section of about 200 meters from the private distance of the Scama apartment located in the B-dong, Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City to the front day of the same creamble elementary school.

C. As a result of the measurement of alcohol conducted by the police officer on the same day on the Plaintiff at around 09:16, the blood alcohol concentration of the Plaintiff was 0.096%.

On December 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of driving would be 0.11%.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, 5, 7-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content 0.11% of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content, which the Defendant used as the basis of the instant disposition, is merely an estimate obtained by simply applying the Badmark formula without considering various variables, such as the Plaintiff’s capability of alcohol decomposition, drinking speed, degree of physical activities after drinking, error scope of a drinking measuring instrument, etc., and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. (2) The instant disposition is excessive to the Plaintiff, taking into account (i) although the Plaintiff was represented by an agent, the Plaintiff left the Plaintiff’s substitute driver at a place other than the destination because of the Plaintiff’s vision; (ii) the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was discharged after a considerable period of time after drinking alcohol; and (iii) the Plaintiff was driving with his father who was suffering from anti-math expenses, and (iii) the Plaintiff responded with the demand of the police.