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

A. On July 11, 2018, at around 23:10, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of alcohol in the blood alcohol level of 0.17%, when driving a D vehicle on the front of the Dap in the city of Yacheon, and was under the control of police officials. The Plaintiff’s pulmonary measurement conducted around 23:15 on the same day.

B. On July 11, 2018, at around 23:42, the Plaintiff measured the blood alcohol level by collecting blood in the emergency room of the E Hospital from a police officer’s guidance. As a result of the appraisal, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was measured by 0.18%.

C. On July 31, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 1 ordinary driving license pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff in the state of alcohol level of 0.18% in blood alcohol level.

On August 17, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on October 10, 2018.

E. On October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on July 11, 2018) with the purport that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of 0.17% of alcohol level during blood” under the Cheongju District Court Support 2018 Gocheon-si51 on October 4, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 12, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s consent to and confirmation letter of blood collection (No. 13 No. 13-1) were arbitrarily stated, and thus, the police officer cannot trust the result of the foregoing blood collection.

In addition, the plaintiff has a wide range of 18 hours before the date of drinking driving, and again, he/she has driven his/her anti-state disease from July 11, 2018 until July 22:30.