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 November 16, 1993, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (B) on November 16, 1993. Around June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff driven approximately 200 meters of the Crocketing car volume under the influence of alcohol up to the running route of Pyeongtaek-si.

B. A police officer under the influence of alcohol at the time requested the Plaintiff to conduct a alcohol test on three occasions, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol, and that the Plaintiff did not comply with the demand for a alcohol test without justifiable grounds.

C. Accordingly, on June 20, 2016, 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 July 21, 2016, but was dismissed on August 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 4

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff, as a pulmonary patient at the time, responded to the best measurement due to bad pulmonary condition, but was not measured due to pulmonary shortage, and did not refuse to take a breath test intentionally.

B. According to each description of evidence Nos. 3 and 8, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of excessive ventilation, difficulty in respiratory, etc. after receiving the instant disposition. However, even according to the above diagnosis contents, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s statement of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 8 alone lacks respiratory level due to respiratory disease, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff was unable to comply with the alcohol testing due to the lack of respiratory capacity due to the respiratory disease at the time.

The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for refusing to take a drinking level or for refusing to take a drinking level.