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

A. On March 31, 1986, Class 1 general, Class 1 large-scale on June 24, 198, and Class 1 special driver's license (B) on November 8, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired and driven a vehicle. On May 17, 2014, at around 23:10, the Plaintiff sent the vehicle to the police officer with D's report attached to Sivic, a driver of the vehicle, who was drinking on the opposite side of a narrow road, as a 22-thro-si, the G Sti vehicle under the Plaintiff's possession of the Plaintiff on the roads after the G Sti vehicle was under the influence of under the influence of alcohol.

B. The police officer, upon receiving a report, demanded that the Plaintiff comply with a drinking test on four occasions on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

C. Accordingly, on June 11, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 93(1)3 and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on October 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the side of the road by driving the Plaintiff’s land E, which was parked on the back of the parked vehicle, and the Plaintiff had talked with other branchs. However, the Plaintiff only driven a vehicle at a level of 10 meters without demanding another vehicle driver to cut off the vehicle to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver is necessarily required for his livelihood, and if the driver’s license is revoked, it is difficult to maintain the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood. In light of the above, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is excessively harsh, and thus, deviates from discretionary power.