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 February 1, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of March 6, 2016 on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff had the history of drinking (0.080% of blood alcohol concentration) on June 15, 2007, and drinking (0.152% of blood alcohol concentration) on October 31, 2007; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driving of B automobiles under the influence of alcohol with 0.05% of blood alcohol concentration on the front of the flapt of food materials at KRW 0.05% on January 25, 2016, on the ground that (c) the Plaintiff constitutes the flag under the influence of alcohol while driving on the flapt of blood alcohol content.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on February 16, 2016.

[Judgment of the court below] The facts that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that blood alcohol content is 0.055% and is merely 0.005% higher than that of the relevant depositee for drunk driving, and is considerably insignificant. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content is within the internal measurement error scope of the respiratory measuring instrument itself, and that the Plaintiff did not request re-measurement or blood measurement with respect to measured values, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. (1) In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2-3, 3-1, and 2-2’s evidence Nos. 2-2.

① A drinking measuring instrument used for the breath measurement is an instrument normally operated after correction to make a result lower than 0.005% of the blood alcohol concentration actually measured on November 18, 2015, two months before the enforcement date, which is about two months before the enforcement date, and there is no ground or material to recognize any error in the alcohol measuring instrument otherwise, so there is no possibility that the blood alcohol concentration excessively has been measured.

(2) It is recognized that the controlling police officer notified the plaintiff of the method of measuring blood after the pulmonary test, but did not request the plaintiff to measure blood.