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 5, 2013, around 00:11, the Plaintiff was investigated on suspicion that he/she refused to comply with a police officer’s request for a alcohol test without any justifiable ground on the street in front of the Dong-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si. The Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on December 16, 2013 pursuant to Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on February 11, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 11, 12, and Eul evidence 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a person who has served in good faith as an educational administrative official for not less than 26 years and was in a situation where breathic surgery was conducted on the date of crackdown and it was difficult to measure drinking by breathr due to breathr on the date of crackdown, not refusing to take a breathic test. There was no reasonable ground to recognize that breathic treatment was under the influence of alcohol, and there was no blood collection even after the consent to blood collection later. Thus,

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. (1) In full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 39 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 11, the plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of a drinking test). The plaintiff was issued a fine of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, when the plaintiff was issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 5 million.