1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 8, 2005, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.169%.

On November 12, 2019, at around 22:40, the Plaintiff driven the electric kickboard while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.048% at the front of Cmiddle School located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

On November 26, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had been driving under the influence of alcohol again even though he had a history of driving under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 5, 2019, but was dismissed on January 21, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] A, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 21, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, the plaintiff did not hear any explanation about the fact that the driver's license is revoked at the time of the drinking Control Act.

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, since an opportunity for re-measurement through the collection of blood was deprived due to the wrong notification by a traffic control police officer, the procedure for the measurement of alcohol to the plaintiff is illegal, and the disposition of this case based on illegal result is also illegal.

The plaintiff did not know that the electric kickboard was subject to the control of drinking alcohol driving, not the suspension of license according to the blood alcohol level, but the disposition in this case was excessive for the reason of drinking power in the past. The plaintiff's vehicle driver's license is indispensable due to frequent business trip with its members, and the blood alcohol level was not high.