1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 15, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) of the Plaintiff on April 21, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.13% on March 12, 2014, while driving the vehicle on two occasions under the influence of alcohol of 0.127% on April 23, 2010 and driving the vehicle on three occasions under the influence of alcohol of 0.09% on March 12, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the breath measurement, the Plaintiff explained that the blood alcohol level level through the breath measurement would be 0.09% of the license suspension for 100 days, and that if blood measurement is conducted due to the above measurement, the driver’s license may be revoked, etc. In response, the Plaintiff waivered the “breath measurement by blood collection.” However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that revoked Plaintiff’s driver’s license, unlike the instructions of the enforcement officer, unlike the instructions of the enforcement officer. Ultimately, the instant disposition was unlawful as long as the Plaintiff lost the opportunity for re-measurement by the Plaintiff’s blood collection due to the erroneous explanation of the enforcement officer’s control officer, so the instant disposition was unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s business division’s employee was in need of driving for business, and the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is extremely difficult when the driver’s license was revoked, the current marriage distance is likely to be terminated, and the Plaintiff did not have any discretion at the time of the instant breath operation.