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 23, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s first-class driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)3 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 13829, Jan. 27, 2016) on the ground that “Around 04:40 on May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol on the street in front of the apartment house in the Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and was discovered while driving a C X-ray sports cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol on the street, but failed to comply with the police officer’s breath test without justifiable grounds.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on August 7, 2015, but the said claim was dismissed on September 8, 2015.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following circumstances: (a) police officers alleged by the Plaintiff did not appear to have been able to drive the Plaintiff at the time of arresting the Plaintiff as an offender in the act of drinking alcohol; and (b) there was no concern about the Plaintiff at the time of the arrest; (c) police officers did not give the Plaintiff such opportunity despite the Plaintiff at the time of arresting the Plaintiff; and (d) police officers did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to defend himself; (b) police officers took excessive restraint on the Plaintiff’s body in the course of arresting the Plaintiff; and (c) police officers did not properly prepare the procedure documents such as the arrest of the Plaintiff in flagrant offender and the suspect release report; and (d) police officers did not properly prepare the procedure documents such as the police officer’s arrest of the Plaintiff as a flagrant offender and the suspect release report. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff refused to take a drinking alcohol test during the arrest, the arrest

I would like to say.

In addition, the plaintiff was prosecuted for violating the Road Traffic Act (Refusal to measure the noise level), but has not yet been convicted, so it is presumed not guilty.