1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On August 2, 198, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class II ordinary) and was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol 0.184% on January 5, 2008, and the driver’s license was revoked on February 14, 2008. On June 13, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (Class II ordinary) on November 16, 2017.

B. On July 5, 2019, at around 01:40, the Plaintiff: (a) 01:40 on the front of a restaurant in the city Ccafeteria B; (b) fluencing the air-conditioning room while driving the Dranc vehicle; and (c) was demanded from police officers dispatched to the site on three occasions from 02:06 to 02:22, the Plaintiff refused to take a alcohol test.

C. On July 19, 2019, the Defendant revoked all the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Defendant refused to take a drinking test.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On November 12, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 17, 201.

E. The Plaintiff was indicted by the Jung-gu District Court 2019Da3423 on the ground that he refused to measure alcohol, and the judgment of conviction was rendered on November 27, 2019, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 5.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 6, Evidence No. 1 to 14]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle parked due to the demand for the movement of the surrounding vehicle, etc. after the Plaintiff opened the vehicle on behalf of the Plaintiff at the time, and moved around about 1m, and during that process, the air conditioner outdoor installed in the restaurant was shocked.

In response to a request for a drinking test, it is only not the wind of the measuring body for the reason that it is excessive and accumulated.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, and even if it is judged differently, it is possible to exercise discretion as it is stipulated as binding act under the provisions of law. Therefore, the plaintiff's driver's license is the plaintiff's license.