The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On December 9, 2019, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol on December 21:24, 2019, driven C-car on the front of the B Apartment-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

A police officer who received a report and dispatched to an accident site on the same day at around 21:44 of the same day measured the blood alcohol concentration as 0.111% as a result of the alcohol measurement conducted by the plaintiff as a respiratory method.

B. On January 21, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the first-class large driver’s license and the first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.11% in blood alcohol concentration.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on January 17, 2020, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on March 10, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the Plaintiff’s argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap’s evidence 5-2, Gap’s evidence 9, Eul evidence 10, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 13, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is unable to trust the result of the alcohol measurement at 0.111% of blood alcohol content as it is, in view of the error possibility of a drinking measuring instrument used for the measurement of alcohol by the Plaintiff. In addition, the Plaintiff completed drinking at around 21:23 on December 9, 2019 and completed driving at around 21:23, and was subject to a alcohol measurement at around 21:44 after driving. Since the above period falls under the point of time of increase of blood alcohol content after the drinking termination, it appears that the blood alcohol content at the time of driving of this case was not more than 0.08%, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of driving of this case was engaged in a tourist bus business, but it is essential to obtain a driver’s license for driving.