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 1, 2016, at around 18:40, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol level of 0.157% on the street in front of the apartment complex of Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-si, Yeonsu-si, Yeonsu-si.

B. On April 21, 2016, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 common) on the ground of drunk driving as indicated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was driving at around 18:30 on the same day after drinking alcohol, and conducted a drinking measurement at around 19:09 on the same day. As such, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was at a rise in the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration, and thus, at the time of driving, the blood alcohol concentration at less than 0.1% can be determined to have been less than 0.1%. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving by the Plaintiff was at least 0.1%.

B. The place where the Plaintiff driven the above vehicle is an apartment road, which is located in the premises of the apartment, and the three sides of the road is located. Since the road in the above apartment house does not fall under the roads under the Road Traffic Act, it does not constitute a ground for revocation of the driver's license even if the Plaintiff driven the

C. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff was driving for a proper parking of the above vehicles with double parking, that the Plaintiff is responsible for the livelihood of his and her wife and children, that the Plaintiff should drive at the workplace, and that he and she should repay the loan, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is an abuse of discretionary power.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (including paper numbers) as to the assertion that the blood alcohol concentration does not amount to 0.1%, the Plaintiff is the vehicle on April 1, 2016.