1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 24, 2004, the Plaintiff had a record of driving under the influence of alcohol with 0.068% alcohol level.

On October 13, 2019, at around 20:29, the Plaintiff driven CKan-Pon Driving (hereinafter “instant drunk driving”) in a state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.034% on the front road B before the light view of the game (hereinafter “instant driving”).

On November 7, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (the instant disposition) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the person who drives a motor vehicle for drinking again drives a motor vehicle falling under the grounds for the suspension of the driver’s license” (hereinafter “the instant driver’s license”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 24, 2019, but was dismissed on February 11, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the overall purport of the arguments, the amount of the plaintiff's assertion for the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the time after drinking, the state of drinking, etc., it is difficult to believe that the blood alcohol level of 0.034% is 0.034%.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

In light of the fact that the instant disposition was abused or abused the scope of discretion, and thus is unlawful in light of the fact that there was no history of drinking driving, blood alcohol level is extremely low, and that the driving is an important means to maintain the livelihood of his family.

Judgment

The facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the allegation of substantive illegality, and in light of the aforementioned evidence, the blood alcohol level of the Plaintiff was 0.038% as a result of the repulmonary measurement conducted after the Plaintiff was placed in his/her place of business, but the blood alcohol level was 0.034% in the result of blood collection conducted at the Plaintiff’s request. However, the blood alcohol level was 0.034% in the result of the repulmonary measurement, and the blood collection result was similar to the results of the blood collection measurement.