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 October 29, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license as of November 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was found to have driven B vehicles in the state of drinking in which blood alcohol concentration was not indicated in the blood alcohol concentration in front of the 83-class, Busan East-gu, Busan-ro, but failed to comply with the police officer’s request for a drinking measurement without justifiable grounds, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license was revoked as of October 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s above claim on February 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made to refuse the measurement of alcohol, as the blood alcohol concentration level higher than the punishment standard level was not added even though the Plaintiff was unsatisfed so far according to the request of the control police officer on the day of the instant assertion.

Since the plaintiff faithfully complies with the blood alcohol measurement, the crime of non-compliance with the alcohol measurement is not established.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s mistake of fact and the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. The fact that a criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis is not binding on the fact-finding of a criminal trial, even if it is not binding on the fact-finding of the criminal trial, is a flexible evidence. Thus, the facts against this cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil or administrative trial.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu324 delivered on September 13, 1983; 2007Da69148 delivered on February 14, 2008; 2007Da69148, 69155 delivered on February 14, 2008, etc.). We examine each of the above evidence and arguments.