1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 8, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that, around September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) in the state of alcohol alcohol level of 0.079% on the road in front of the upstream-dong of the upstream-dong, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) at least three occasions, on the ground that he/she driven a motor vehicle in the state of drinking alcohol level of 0.079% on the road in front of the upstream-dong, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

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

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's blood alcohol level at the time of driving is likely to be lower than the actual measured blood alcohol level so it is hard to conclude that the plaintiff's blood alcohol level at the time of driving exceeded 0.05%, and the plaintiff is responsible for the management of the driver's vehicle at the time of driving. Second, the plaintiff's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's operation is absolutely necessary, since the plaintiff's vehicle's vehicle's driver's driver's license is revoked, and the vehicle's vehicle's operation is lost due to the plaintiff's loss of the vehicle's workplace and great harm to his livelihood. In light of the above, the plaintiff's disposition of abuse of discretionary power is unlawful and excessive beyond the defendant's interest needs.

B. On March 2008, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was recognized.