1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s second-class ordinary driver’s license (E) as of November 27, 2015, on the ground that: (a) on August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff driving a D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD vehicle on the front road located in the wife population B as of August 18, 2015 under the influence of alcohol concentration as of August 21, 2015; and (b) the Defendant refused the police officer’s request for the measurement of alcohol without justifiable grounds.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 4 through 8 and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had contact with the victimized vehicle while driving his own vehicle at the above date and time and at the above place. However, the Plaintiff may not drink at all on the ground that he suffers from pindial pressure, urology, cardiopulmonary urology, and cardiopulmonary urology.

The Plaintiff may be mistaken for the other party to have drinking because he/she temporarily frankly frightened when he/she drinks blood pressure or cardiopulmonary symptoms. However, even if he/she did not drinking at all at the time of the accident, the police officer demanded a strong alcohol measurement and made a little resistance.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff did not refuse to measure the level of drinking alcohol.

B. 1) In a case where it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of traffic and prevent danger, or where there is a considerable reason to recognize that a driver has driven a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol and it is necessary to confirm whether a driver has driven a motor vehicle, the police officer may request the driver to take a alcohol test pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, unless it is evident that it is impossible to confirm whether the driver has driven a motor vehicle by means of an ex post facto alcohol test, and if the driver has failed to comply with such request, the act of refusal to take a alcohol test is established (Supreme Court Decision