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 May 18, 2007, the Plaintiff was under the influence of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with 0.08% and 0.07% of the blood alcohol concentration on June 13, 2009 and violated the duty of prohibition of drunk driving.

B. On August 8, 2019, the Plaintiff, at around 22:00, was driving a crypian car volume from the place of the vehicle B (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”) to have a beer 1 cans in the calendar park near Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul, and returned home to the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”). At around 23:15 on the same day, the Plaintiff was discovered by the crackdown on drinking driving at the front of the D Hospital located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

C. On August 8, 2019, a police officer in charge of the control measured the blood alcohol concentration with the Plaintiff at around 23:23, according to the respiratory measurement method, the blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.048%.

On August 24, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the instant drunk driving, which constitutes a violation of the duty of prohibition of drinking driving, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of prohibition of drinking driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on September 4, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 15, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 26, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 11, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged violation of the procedure for measuring the 1st alcohol level was explained only by the traffic control police officer at the time of drinking control that the driver's license is suspended, but did not hear any explanation about the fact that the driver's license is revoked.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff gave up the opportunity to measure blood alcohol concentration by blood gathering, trusting the horses of the control police officer who is subject to suspension of driver's license.

Therefore, the control police officer's.