1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 5, 2019, at around 06:45, the Plaintiff operated a passenger car car car at C in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul on the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and had it under the influence of drinking, but rejected the measurement.

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

On June 15, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 28, 2019, but was dismissed on August 20, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that actively cooperates in the investigation into a drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and that there was no personal injury, and that the Plaintiff could not use public transportation late due to the time of leaving from the bar due to the absence of late time, the Plaintiff’s instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretionary authority or abused discretionary authority.

B. According to Articles 93(1)3 and 44(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), if a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement despite reasonable grounds to recognize that a police officer was under the influence of alcohol, the defendant should revoke the driver’s license, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have a discretionary power to decide whether to revoke the license, taking into account the Plaintiff’s circumstances, etc.

On a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.