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 May 25, 2019, the Defendant issued a notice of decision to revoke a driver’s license (class 1 common) by applying Article 93(1)3 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same) on the ground that “the Plaintiff was found to have driven a B vehicle under the influence of alcohol on April 24, 2019, while driving it at around 18:06, but failed to comply with the police officer’s demand for a alcohol test without justifiable grounds.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on July 23, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, 11, Eul evidence 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) although the Plaintiff was in a state of drinking, the police officer did not drive a vehicle on the ground that the Plaintiff was in a state of drinking. However, the police officer demanded a drinking-free drinking test, not a drinking-free driver, and the Plaintiff who did not drive a vehicle was refused measurement. The police officer’s police officer demanded the Plaintiff to put the Plaintiff in a vehicle patrol, not a voluntary driving, and forced the Plaintiff to put the Plaintiff into a police box, and demanded the Plaintiff to put the Plaintiff into a certificate of refusal to take a drinking test, and the Plaintiff refused to take a drinking test. The police officer’s demand for a drinking test was illegal in light of the procedure of the police officer’s demand for a drinking-free taxi driver, and thus, the instant disposition was also unlawful. (2) The instant disposition was also unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s personal rehabilitation procedure was against the duty to take a drinking-free taxi driver in 2014, and even if the Plaintiff was driving, it was short of the distance of movement by abusing discretion.

B. Determination 1) As to the assertion such as absence of grounds for disposition, it is necessary to measure the "police officer" under Article 93 (1) 3 of the former Road Traffic Act.