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 13, 2019, the Plaintiff, while driving a B vehicle under the influence of alcohol on May 13, 2019, was exposed to police officers.

B. At around 06:39 on May 13, 2019, the blood alcohol concentration of the pulmonary measurement result was 0.112%, and the blood alcohol concentration of the result of the appraisal requested by the Plaintiff after collecting blood around 07:14 on the same day.

C. At around 06:39 on May 13, 2019, the Defendant: (a) deemed that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.15%; and (b) applied Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) on June 6, 2019, the Defendant issued a notification to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large and class 1 common) on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.1%” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 24 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

가. 원고의 주장 1) 처분사유 부존재 원고는 차량을 약 30m 가량 이동하고 운전석에서 깜빡 잠이 들었다가 경찰관이 창문을 두드려 잠에서 깨었는데, 대략 1시간 남짓 잠든 것으로 보인다. 원고의 최종음주 시각은 2019. 5. 13. 05:30이고, 그로부터 5분 후인 05:35경 이 사건 음주운전을 한 것으로 추측되는데, 혈중알코올농도가 06:39경의 호흡측정에서는 0.112%였다가 07:14경 채혈결과에서는 0.15%로 상승하였는바, 이 사건 음주운전 당시인 05:35경은 혈중알코올농도 상승기로서 혈중알코올농도가 면허취소 수치인 0.1% 이상이라고 단정할 수 없다. 2) 재량권의 일탈남용 원고는 음주운전 전력이 없는 점, 대리운전 기사를 부른 것으로 착각하여 대로변까지 약 30m 차량을 이동한 것에 불과한 점,...