자동차운전면허취소처분취소
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 June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff, while drinking alcohol and drinking it, driven Bsch Rexton car on the front road of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Northern District (Seoul Northern District) around 03:40, at around 03:40.
A police officer belonging to the Gangnam Police Station who observed this, demanded the plaintiff to comply with the alcohol alcohol test at around 04:00, but the plaintiff did not comply with it.
B. On July 5, 2018, the Defendant rendered a notice of the Plaintiff’s revocation of Class I ordinary car driving licenses and Class II ordinary car driving licenses on the ground that the Plaintiff refuses to measure alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 10, 2018.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 12, Eul 4, and 5 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.
1) According to the National Police Agency's guidelines for traffic control of the Police Agency, police officers shall clearly notify the driver who fails to comply with the request for the measurement of alcohol at least three times at intervals of 10 minutes and, despite such notification, the police officers belonging to the defendant who refuse the measurement despite the notification (at the time of the first request for measurement, only 30 minutes after the time of the first request for measurement, the police officers belonging to the defendant did not comply with it, and the plaintiff temporarily refused the measurement without recognizing the police officer's request for measurement in normal condition, but actively expressed his intention to comply with the measurement of alcohol, in light of the fact that the plaintiff temporarily refused the measurement without recognizing the police officer's request for measurement in a state of drinking and interest, it cannot be said that the plaintiff expressed his intention to refuse the measurement at the time.