2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 22, 2017, the Defendant issued a revocation disposition on the revocation of the license for driving automobiles (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, at around 22:40 on August 3, 2017, was under the influence of alcohol in the blood alcohol concentration, he/she was under the influence of driving Category B tea under the influence of alcohol concentration, and was refused to measure each drinking level at around 23:0 on the same day, around 23:15, and around 23:35 on the same day.”

B. On January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on February 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence Nos. 1 and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff moved to a garden operated by Nana at the time of crackdown; (b) there was no fact of driving; and (c) the police officer’s demand for the measurement of drinking by force without notifying the doctrine of franchising.

In addition, the instant disposition is unlawful because it violates the principle of profit bridge.

B. (1) With respect to the existence of the grounds for disposition, if deemed necessary for the safety of traffic and the prevention of danger, or if deemed necessary for the confirmation of a driver's driving under the influence of alcohol, the police officer may request the driver to take a drinking test after the drinking test, unless it is clear that it is impossible to confirm whether the driver's driving under the influence of alcohol is under the influence of alcohol, and if the driver fails to comply with it, the crime of non-compliance with the drinking test is established.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do4328, Feb. 9, 2012). Furthermore, whether there are reasonable grounds to recognize a drunken state ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of objective circumstances, such as the appearance, attitude, and driving behavior of each individual driver at the time of the request for a sobreath test.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on January 24, 2003