Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On April 15, 2020, at around 20:09, the Plaintiff: (a) concealed a vehicle in front of the vehicle while driving C in the influence of alcohol on the front of Daegu Suwon-gu B (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”); (b) caused a traffic accident involving an injury such as acute fluoral salt, etc., which requires two weeks’ treatment; (c) was discovered in the course of investigating the said accident; and (d) was measured at around 20:25 on April 15, 2020, the blood alcohol concentration of the Plaintiff was 0.145%.

B. On May 11, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of May 29, 2020 pursuant to Articles 93(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 16, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, 13 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition based on the retroactive application of the blood alcohol concentration measured after 37 minutes of the instant drunk driving was unlawful. 2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is in charge of store management and delivery at fireworks stores, and that the Plaintiff is a requisite means of living in the Plaintiff, and that there is a family member and economic difficulty, the Plaintiff’s disadvantage is considerably excessive compared to the public interest protected by the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority.