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. The Plaintiff was requested by police officers from May 13, 2017 to from May 22:55 to 23:12, but did not comply therewith.
B. On May 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 and class 2) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement even though there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on September 19, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition was faithfully in the police officer’s demand for a so-called “breath test.” The police officer requested the Plaintiff to take a so-called “breath test for one hour,” and responded to a so-called “breath test” at the last three times of warning. Nevertheless, it is unlawful for a police officer to regard the Plaintiff as refusal to take a so-called “breath test” on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have a so-called “breath test” for one hour. Moreover, the police officer’s demand for a so-called “breath test” is an unlawful so-called “breath test,” and it does not constitute a refusal to take a so-called “breath test” prohibited under the Road Traffic Act even if the Plaintiff did not comply with the demand for a so-called “breath test.” 2) The Plaintiff was under the demand for a prompt deduction of the vehicle at the time of abuse of discretionary power, and the Plaintiff was under the control of the vehicle.
B. Reasons for determination 1.