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 June 29, 2017, at around 01:35, the Plaintiff was under the influence of drinking driving while driving a motor vehicle of ecub on the front of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, but rejected the measurement.

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

On July 11, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I common) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 10, 2017, but was dismissed on September 19, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 16 evidence, Eul 4 through 7, and 8-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff only driven a short distance after drinking; (b) the Plaintiff’s operation did not cause personal or material injury; and (c) the Plaintiff’s operation of the vehicle is essential for the Plaintiff’s occupation (IT-related technical assistance); (b) so, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power when considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s living and family members’ livelihood (including a large amount of debt and family members) are difficult when the instant disposition is finalized.

B. According to Articles 94(1)3 and 44(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017) where a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement despite a considerable reason to recognize that a police officer was under the influence of alcohol, the defendant must revoke the driver’s license, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have a discretionary power to decide whether to revoke the license, considering the Plaintiff’s circumstances.

On a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.