beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 3, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of June 16, 2014 on the ground that, around May 6, 2014, at around 02:55, the Plaintiff was found to drive B SP car in the state of alcohol influence concentration under the influence of blood alcohol concentration (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). However, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked as of June 16, 2014 on the ground that the Defendant refused to comply with the request for a alcohol measurement by the control police officer without justifiable grounds.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff, at the time of this case's crackdown, parked the vehicle of this case on the street side of his trade name Y at the time of this case's crackdown, and left two ships with only two drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free driver, but he demanded a drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free driving-free driving. The plaintiff's request for a drinking-free driver's drinking-free drinking-free drinking-free driving-free driving-out level was not a significant reason to see that the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the request for a drinking-free measurement, but the disposition of this case in this case is unlawful on different premise. 2) The plaintiff argues that it is necessary for the plaintiff to maintain his livelihood since he was working at the business division of D Yang-gu Co., Ltd. in his residence to the above working place, and that the driver's license should be revoked in light of the fact that it has been an exemplary driving-out of discretion.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. Determination 1: (a) Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that no ground for disposition exists.