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

A. The Plaintiff, at around 23:00 on February 15, 2019, is driving a motor vehicle with drinking alcohol in front of B in front of B, 2019.

In spite of a police officer's request for a drinking test, the police officer who was under drinking control refused the test.

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

On May 29, 2019, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment of conviction for the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties on the grounds of Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2019 High Court 209, and the Plaintiff appealed against this and withdrawn the appeal, and the said judgment of conviction became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On April 13, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on the ground of the instant refusal to measure alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On May 9, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, significant fact in this court, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1 through 6, 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 1) 처분사유 부존재 주장 당시 원고는 공무집행방해죄의 현행범으로 체포되는 과정에서 얼굴에 상당한 상처를 입었고, 대천파출소로 연행된 후에 이루어진 1차 음주측정요구에는 순순히 응하였다. 그런데, 원고가 차량 안에서 히터를 틀어놓고 입을 벌린 채 장시간 잠을 자고 일어나서 혓바닥이 종이처럼 말라있어서 측정기에 호흡을 불어 넣기가 곤란하여 물을 달라고 하였으나 받아들여지지 않았고, 혈액채취 요청도 거부되었다. 얼굴에 상해를 입은 상태에서 불가피한 사정으로 혈액채취를 요청한 것일뿐 의도적으로 음주측정 요구에 불응한 것이 아니다. 2) 재량, 일탈 남용 주장 원고는 회식자리에서 술을...