1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (1) On June 29, 2003, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of revocation of a driver’s license on the grounds of drunk driving (0.230% of blood alcohol concentration) and was subject to criminal punishment on April 28, 2004 for driving without a license and drunk driving (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration). On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff driven B B or another car while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of not less than 0.053% at a 0.053% of blood alcohol concentration at the right line located in Suwon-si, Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-dong.

B. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class II common).

On October 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on November 21, 2017.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) The plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff that his driver's license will be suspended on the day of the re-measurement, but did not notify the plaintiff that his driver's license will be revoked. The plaintiff renounced his blood sampling test on the premise that although the police officer in charge was under the influence of alcohol prior to about 13 to 14 years, the driver's license had already been controlled by the influence of alcohol, the driver did not have any reason to avoid blood sampling test if he knew that his driver's license was revoked on the ground that he was under the control of three times of drinking driving, and even if he did not have any reason to avoid blood sampling test if he knew that the driver's license was revoked, the police officer in charge did not actually provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to re-measurement by blood sampling because he did not guarantee credibility. Thus, the disposition in this case does not have any reason to prove the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration.