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 27, 2019, at around 23:05, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.094% on the roads front of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, and discovered them to police officers.

B. On January 29, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary license by applying Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence of alcohol as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On February 12, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 17, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On December 27, 2019, the point at which the Plaintiff completed the final alcohol alcohol at around 22:05 and measured the respiratory level on the same day. As such, the blood alcohol level at the time of the Plaintiff at the time falls under the riseer and thus the blood alcohol level at 0.094% cannot be said to be the correct numerical value. (ii) The police officer controlling the Plaintiff at the time when collecting blood samples to the Plaintiff after the respiratory measurement, said that the blood alcohol level falls short of the numerical value, and thus, the Plaintiff failed to collect blood.

The Plaintiff lost the opportunity to collect blood due to police officers’ breach of duty to notify the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3) Considering that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case was taken on November 2003 as a drunk driving on the ground that it complied with the laws and regulations without the influence of alcohol driving and is in need of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s occupation, it is erroneous in the Plaintiff’s act of abusing or abusing discretion by excessively harshing to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is revoked. (B) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the blood alcohol concentration was increased first, is as indicated in the relevant laws and regulations. (c) In light of the above evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, it is immediately after the Plaintiff’s drunk driving.