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 January 31, 2019, around 03:12, 2019, the Plaintiff operated Cenz’s car volume in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Parking Lot, and had it under the influence of drinking, but refused to conduct the measurement.

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

On March 8, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 motorcycles) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 19, 2019, but was dismissed on April 30, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 7 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In order to revoke a driver’s license on grounds of the refusal to measure a drinking alcohol, the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure a drinking alcohol despite reasonable grounds to recognize that the Plaintiff was driving. However, since the Plaintiff was requested to measure a drinking alcohol at home after the lapse of one hour from the date on which the driving was completed, it was unlawful to measure the drinking alcohol.

B) According to Article 38(11) of the Traffic Control Guidelines, with respect to a drinkinger who fails to comply with a drinking test, the disadvantage caused by the refusal to take a drinking test shall be clearly notified at least three times at intervals of 10 minutes, but the disadvantage caused by the refusal to take a drinking test at the time of the drinking test in this case was not clearly notified, and there was no demand for measurement at intervals of 10 minutes. Therefore, the instant drinking test is illegal. Therefore, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion of abuse of discretion is necessary to operate a vehicle on duty as an employee carrying out the delivery business of the drinking product, and there are family members to support, the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.