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 February 16, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (B), and was subject to a disposition of suspension of driver’s license by driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.085% on May 19, 2008. On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of driver’s license by driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.094% on blood alcohol level. On May 22, 2018, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of driver’s license by driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.085% on May 22, 2018, from the viewing parking lot in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, to the front day of the same water source (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

B. On July 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drunk driving; (b) issued a disposition revoking the license of the vehicle driving stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff lost the opportunity to request a measurement of blood collection (section 1). The Plaintiff’s notification that the Plaintiff cannot obtain a driver’s license for two years from a police officer for not less than three times after the blood alcohol level was rebreathed due to the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant notification”).

(2) The judgment of the court below is justifiable in light of the above legal principles. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to blood sampling, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to blood sampling, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.