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 16, 2001, the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.161% of alcohol level.

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff, at around 06:34 on August 17, 2019, driven a B low-priced car while under the influence of alcohol of 0.032%, and 200 meters from the luminous City to the front road of the Emiddle School located in Gwangju-si D.

C. On August 27, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving again under the influence of drinking alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration measured by the non-existence of the reason for disposition was 0.03% more than 0.02%, which is the standard value for drunk driving, and 0.032% more than 0.02%, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration measurement by the drinking measuring instrument is likely to cause error depending on the inherent limit of the measurement method, personal and temporary circumstances, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff is driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with the alcohol level of 0.032%. 2) The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration measured by the drinking measuring instrument, which was 0.032% higher than that of the Plaintiff, notified the Plaintiff that the driver’s driver’s license was suspended, and the Plaintiff did not request the Plaintiff to take a blood alcohol concentration measurement by blood collection. Accordingly, due to the erroneous notification by the controlling police officer, the Plaintiff was unable to be guaranteed the opportunity for the Plaintiff to appeal against the aforementioned measurement result, namely, the opportunity for measuring blood collection.