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 July 24, 2018, at around 22:10, the Plaintiff, while drinking alcohol, driven D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

B. A police officer, who was dispatched to the above site upon receiving a report on a drunk driving after diving, requested the Plaintiff to take a alcohol alcohol test on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Plaintiff driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol and drinking distance. However, the Plaintiff refused such demand without justifiable grounds.

C. On September 7, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s refusal to take a drinking test (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on December 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) since an agent who arrived at the site after the plaintiff's call was driving the plaintiff's vehicle and caused a contact accident corresponding to the driver's vehicle parked at that site, the plaintiff's driving of the above vehicle is not possible even if the plaintiff did not comply with the police officer's request for a drinking test. 2) The plaintiff is a handknicker. However, if the place where the inspection is to be conducted in one month is about 2,400 and the driver is unable to perform his/her duties, it is difficult to perform his/her duties, and the driver's driving is essential to take care of the care of the elderly's mother in the hospital. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is revoked because the plaintiff's act of abuse of discretionary power is too harsh to the plaintiff.

B. The allegation that there is no fact of driving one vehicle to be determined.