The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On April 19, 2020, the Plaintiff, while driving a B-car on April 19, 2020 after drinking alcohol, was diving in the signal atmosphere.

A police officer, who was called upon receiving a report, failed to comply with the request of the plaintiff for a measurement of drinking on three occasions from 04:55 to 05:25 on the same day, after killing the plaintiff's speech and behavior color, etc.

B. On May 7, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking all the Plaintiff’s first-class large driver’s licenses and first-class ordinary driver’s licenses on grounds of refusal to measure alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on May 27, 2020, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on August 11, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] In light of all circumstances such as the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that there was no personal injury due to the plaintiff's drinking driving. The plaintiff's driver's license is essential due to the nature of the business as a person engaged in the used vehicle sales business, the driver's license is difficult if the driver's license is revoked, and the plaintiff supports two children alone, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.

Judgment

Article 93 (1) (proviso) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act provide that the driver's license shall be revoked in cases where a police officer fails to comply with a police officer's measurement despite reasonable grounds to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol.

According to the above regulations, the defendant must revoke the driver's license for a person who refuses to take a drinking test, and shall not have discretion as to whether to revoke the driver's license.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 14, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff drinks alcohol.