1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 2019, at around 22:35, the Plaintiff: (a) committed a violation of signal while driving a C original equipment bicycle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.110% (hereinafter “driving of this case”) before the Daegu Seo-gu B market; (b) directly driven a pedestrian’s bridge with a pedestrian who dried the crosswalk on the pedestrian signal; (c) sustained an injury on the part of the pedestrian’s bridge with a pedestrian who dried the crosswalk on the pedestrian signal; and (d) sustained an injury on the fluorn blood transfusion without any two internal wifes in need of four weeks of treatment.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On January 20, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of January 28, 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 February 21, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 12, 17, 21, and 22 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not make the drafting at the time of drinking alcohol measurement, so it is likely that the result of the measurement was excessive due to alcohol remaining in the drafting. In addition, it is possible that the blood alcohol concentration measured at the time of drinking alcohol testing at the time of drinking alcohol testing at the time of drinking alcohol testing at the time of drinking alcohol testing at the time of the blood alcohol level measurement at the time of drinking alcohol level is likely to have been excessive compared to the actual blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking. Therefore, the instant disposition is inappropriate on the premise that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration level at the time of drinking alcohol testing at the time of the instant drinking driving at the time of the instant disposition at issue corresponds to 0.110% measured by the drinking alcohol level at the time of drinking alcohol testing at the time of the instant disposition at issue.