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

A. On March 20, 2019, at around 23:38, the Plaintiff driven a CNS car while under the influence of alcohol at approximately 70 meters from the vicinity of the sloping tower in Pyeongtaek-si to the front road of Pyeongtaek-si B building.

(hereinafter referred to as “drinking driving of this case”). (b)

The plaintiff, while driving in the road without temporarily stop at the time, was faced with the injury, such as the bridge of the left side bridge, which requires the treatment for about five weeks to D, by taking the front part of the vehicle in front of the part of the pedestrian D (ma, 48 years old) where the plaintiff she walked with the plaintiff's vehicle and walked.

C. The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was measured at 0.141% at the time of the crackdown on drunk driving of the instant case.

On April 10, 2019, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, and class 2 motorcycles) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 or (3) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident causing human damage by driving under the instant drinking”.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on April 17, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 14, 2019.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 Facts, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 30 evidence, Eul's evidence 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The distance of the Plaintiff’s assertion to the drinking driving of the instant case is only 30 meters remaining.

Since the acquisition of a driver's license, the Plaintiff has been engaged in exemplary driving in compliance with the law except for a few violations of recommended laws for about 14 years, and there is no history of traffic accident or drunk driving.

The plaintiff was not a substitute driver at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, but he did not go against his duty, and thus, he was able to drive under the influence of the driver.

The plaintiff is exempted from drinking alcohol.