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 April 9, 2019, at around 04:48, the Plaintiff is driving a motor vehicle while drinking the alcohol on the front side of the intersection in the Eup/Myeon of Asan-si.

On the other hand, the police officer who was under drinking control failed to comply with the request for a measurement of drinking more than three times.

B. Accordingly, on April 26, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 2 ordinary) of a motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on May 29, 2019.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on July 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff alleged that the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing or abusing discretion due to its harshness. However, the proviso of Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “If a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement despite a considerable reason to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol, the driver’s license must be revoked.” Thus, it is evident that there is no room for discretion to decide whether to revoke a driver’s license to the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is legally

Therefore, since the defendant's disposition of this case on the ground of the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement is not an issue of abuse of discretion, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion