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 31, 2015, around 01:30 on July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff driven B vehicles on the street in front of the Kaamba, Kaamba, Mannam, and did not comply with the request of a police official to measure alcohol.

B. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large and class 1 common) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large and class 1 large) was drunk and discovered, but the Plaintiff failed to comply with the request for alcohol measurement as described in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 3, 2015.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 18, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) went to a police station after receiving a report from the wife, and went to the police station after going to go to the police station; (b) on July 31, 2015, when the Plaintiff was in Korea without communicating with his wife; (c) on July 31, 2015, when he was in Korea, the Plaintiff went to the police station after going to death; and (d) he went to the taxi owned by the Plaintiff due to the lack of his wife; and (d) he went to the police station.

Although the Plaintiff was at any place in police officers, police officers demanded the Plaintiff to take a drinking test, the Plaintiff was at least five hours after drinking alcohol, and the Plaintiff was at least five hours after drinking alcohol, and did not comply with the measurement due to the influence of alcohol.

In this case, there was no reasonable ground to recognize that the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and there was no legitimate request for a police officer for a respiratory examination.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s whereabouts is between the police station to locate his wife, that the taxi driver is a means of maintaining livelihood, and that there is no property other than an individual taxi.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff determined the absence of grounds for disposition.