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 June 27, 2017, around 23:30 on June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff caused a contact accident while driving CK5 cars on the front side of Mapo-gu Seoul, and in the course of investigating the said accident, the Plaintiff was required to take a drinking test on three-lanes around 1, 00:02, around 23:53 on the same day from police officers (hereinafter “instant police officers”), but failed to comply with it.

B. On July 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the police officer’s demand for a breath test on the ground that there was considerable reason to recognize that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on October 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff demanded that the police officer of this case make a second drinking test again as he declared the non-compliance with the second drinking test. The plaintiff's intention of refusal to take a drinking test was not continuous and repeated, but was a temporary one in the state of mental and physical disability.

Therefore, the plaintiff's act does not constitute a non-compliance with the alcohol measurement prohibited by the Road Traffic Act.

B) The instant police officers did not specifically notify the Plaintiff of any disadvantage resulting from the refusal to take a alcohol test at the time of demanding the Plaintiff to take a alcohol test, and notified the instant police officers once and once again. Therefore, the instant police officers’ demand for a alcohol test is a demand for an illegal alcohol test in violation of the traffic control guidelines, and thus, the instant police officers’ demand for a alcohol test does not constitute a refusal to take a alcohol test that is prohibited under the Road Traffic Act, even if they did not comply with such demand. 2) The Plaintiff who