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 18, 2019, at around 23:05, the Plaintiff driven D's low-pollution vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.036% in front of the C Company located in Daegu Suwon-gu B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).

B. On January 3, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) as of January 29, 2020, pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant had driven under the influence of alcohol more than the second day.

(hereinafter referred to as “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 March 17, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 9, 10 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was aware of the fact that the license was suspended due to the fact that the police officer in charge at the time of the control, and the Defendant did not collect blood, and the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s license was deprived of the opportunity for re-measurement of blood alcohol concentration through blood collection due to the erroneous notification by the enforcement officer, and the respiratory measuring machine used at the time of control cannot be trusted to have been corrected not later than four months prior to the enforcement date. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot prove the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at 0.036% as a result of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol measurement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition in this case was unlawful. (2) The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at 0.03%, and this is within the error scope, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at 0.03% cannot be deemed to have been exceeded, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was in charge of business in the entire North and Ulsan regions at the bar.