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 August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired Class 1 ordinary motor vehicle driver’s license (B).

On February 13, 2015, at around 01:51 on February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff driven approximately 100 meters from the front side of the Tri-gu Haak-gu Haak-si to the front side of the Tri-gu Haak-si.

B. The police officer called up after receiving a report that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol, demanded that the Plaintiff comply with the demand for measurement of drinking alcohol on three occasions at around 02:21, 02:31, and 02:41. However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the demand for measurement of drinking alcohol without justifiable grounds.

C. Accordingly, on March 3, 2015, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license pursuant to the proviso of Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 93(1)3 and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 2, 2015, but was dismissed on June 9, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff sent a substitute engineer at the time to drive a vehicle, and the Plaintiff was boarding the back seat, and the police officer demanded the Plaintiff to take a drinking test while putting up the vehicle. At the time, the Plaintiff was driving the vehicle, and the Plaintiff did not own the vehicle. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to demand a drinking test to the Plaintiff even though there was no reasonable ground for the Plaintiff to drive the vehicle at the time, and there is justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to refuse to comply with such a drinking test. 2) The Plaintiff’s demand for a drinking test was due process when the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to drive the vehicle in an act of committing a flagrant act.