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

A. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) and obtained a driver’s license on November 2, 2017 (Class 2 small-sized vehicles). On May 16, 2018, the Plaintiff was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.184%, and the driver’s license was entirely revoked on July 29, 2018. The Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class 2 ordinary vehicles) on July 31, 2019.

B. On December 18, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol at 05:30% of alcohol level, the Plaintiff driven a car with approximately two km distance from the front of the Southern-si, Southern-si, B, Seoul, to the road front of the Gyeongri-si (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2420, Dec. 18, 2019>

C. On January 16, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground of the instant drinking driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On February 12, 2020, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission

4. The dismissal was 14.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, Evidence No. 1 through 12]

2. The judgment of the Plaintiff: (a) returned home to her friend or drinking alcohol by no later than 21:00 before the date of the pertinent drunk driving; (b) the blood alcohol level was the lowest penalty standard; (c) the possibility of error cannot be ruled out because the blood alcohol level was the lower limit; (d) the distance of movement is relatively short; (e) there is no human or physical damage caused by the instant drunk driving; (b) the person was actively engaged in the ordinary frisome driving and actively cooperate in the police investigation; (c) the driver’s license is absolutely absolutely necessary by engaging in the field of construction; and (d) economic situation, etc., the instant disposition was abused by exceeding

However, at the time of enforcement, the Plaintiff recognized the violation, such as not requiring the measurement by blood collection even after being notified of the blood alcohol concentration level (in case of ordinary blood collection, most cases where blood alcohol concentration is higher than blood alcohol level) and pulmonary measurement.