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

A. On October 15, 2018, the Plaintiff is driving a motor vehicle while drinking alcohol on the front of the relevant B building at around 02:55.

On the other hand, the police officer who was under drinking control failed to comply with the request for a measurement of drinking more than three times.

B. Accordingly, on December 3, 2018, the Defendant revoked (hereinafter “instant disposition”) a driver’s license (class 1, class 2, class 2, and class 2) on December 12, 2018 to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2018.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on February 19, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, in light of the following: (a) human and physical damage has not occurred due to drinking driving of the instant case; and (b) the driver’s license is required to be revoked; and (c) family support and maintenance of livelihood is difficult

B. We examine the judgment, and the proviso of Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “If a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement even if there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol, the driver’s license shall be revoked.” Thus, it is evident that there is no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the driver’s license to the Defendant, who

Therefore, since the defendant's disposition of this case on the ground of the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement of this case is not an issue of abuse of discretion, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.