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

A. On March 19, 2019, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition for the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven the B car under the influence of alcohol of 0.057% with a blood alcohol content around 06:53 on February 201, 201, while under the influence of 0.057% at the same time on the street in the city of Kimhae-si apartment ( approximately 3.5 km)” on the ground that “The Plaintiff driven the automobile of 0.5 km on October 4, 201, and 209 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On March 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was breathly measured without suffering from the breathm in the process of breathing so that the depositee cannot trust 0.057%, the plaintiff was driving a vehicle with approximately eight-hour water after the previous drinking, and the plaintiff cannot apply the revocation provision to the plaintiff who is not the intentional crime, the plaintiff's second breath driving power has long occurred, the old breath's pattern and family's livelihood, and the disposition of this case is in violation of the excessive prohibition principle and constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

나. 판단 (1) 처분사유의 존재에 관하여 먼저 원고가 음주측정과정에서 물로 입안을 헹구지 않았는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 을 제6, 8호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 수사기관에서 “음주측정 전 구강청정제를 사용하지 않았고, 음주측정 전 물로 입을 헹궜다.”고 진술하였고, 주취운전자정황진술보고서에도 위 진술과 동일하게 기재되어 있음을 인정할 수...