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

A. On April 20, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol at around 00:11, the Plaintiff: (a) driven an EW car from around 300 meters away from the front of a restaurant where the trade name in Seosan City is unknown to the front of a restaurant located in Seosan City, Seosan City, to the front of a restaurant located in Seosan City; and (b) caused an accident where the said DM car was driven in favor of the above D cafeteria.

At the time, there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Plaintiff was driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as snicking, influoring alcohol, stringing red on face, etc., the Plaintiff was demanded to comply with the drinking test by inserting the breath for about 15 minutes from Snsan Police Station F District Police Station G to put the breath in a drinking measuring instrument for about 15 minutes.

그럼에도 불구하고 원고는 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주 측정에 응하지 아니하였다

(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)

On April 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff refused to measure alcohol in this case, under Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act, to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I large and ordinary) as of June 2, 2019.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 15 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff refused to measure alcohol in this case under the influence of drinking; (b) the distance of movement driven by the Plaintiff is relatively short; (c) the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential to perform his duties and maintain his livelihood as a fire-fighting official; and (d) the Plaintiff’s mistake is against the Plaintiff’s depth, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused discretion.

B. Each of the aforementioned evidence.