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 16, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the Class 2 driver’s license for a motorcycle (license number B), the Class 1 driver’s license for a ordinary motor vehicle (license number as above), the Class 3 driver’s license for a large motor vehicle on February 21, 2003 (3), and the Class 1 driver’s license for a large motor vehicle on January 25, 2008 (license number as above) respectively.

B. On August 10, 2014, at around 02:05, the Plaintiff driven a C-learning passenger car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) under the influence of alcohol level of 0.063% (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) on the two-lanes of the road traveling along the roads for the road traveling along the outer expressway in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Han-gu, the Han-gu Seoul, at the upper end of the road for the road for the smooth flow of the Highway (hereinafter “instant accident”) and caused an accident that causes injury to his passengers, such as the right edge part of the right edge, which requires four weeks’ treatment (hereinafter “instant accident”), and was found to have been discovered by the police.

C. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke all of the Plaintiff’s respective drivers’ licenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on October 12, 2014 pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on September 22, 2014.

On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but was ruled dismissed on October 28, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, 4, 5, 8 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) In a case where the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no grounds for disposition is likely to increase the blood alcohol level at the time of drunk driving, (A) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of drunk driving cannot be confirmed by applying only the part concerning decomposition extinguishment following the lapse of time in the Bamark model based on the blood alcohol level measured after a considerable time has elapsed from the point of time when the blood alcohol level was measured.

(b).