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 21, 2017, at around 05:15, the Plaintiff was required to take a drinking test on three occasions on the ground that the Plaintiff appears to have driven a B car under the influence of alcohol at the front of 1141, Pyeongtaek-dong 1141, Pyeongtaek-dong, and refused to comply therewith.

(hereinafter “instant refusal of drinking alcohol measurement”). (b)

On June 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 large, class 1 ordinary, and class 2 common) on the ground of the instant refusal to measure alcohol (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 21, 2017, but was dismissed on August 8, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, 5 through 7, Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s claim was made in a situation where there is no reasonable ground to recognize that the Plaintiff driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

The instant disposition based on the premise that there was a reasonable ground as above is unlawful as it does not exist any grounds for disposition.

B. Determination 1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments in the statements or videos set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 through 7, the plaintiff walked on the above vehicle that was parked across India and on the road around May 21, 2017 and stopped thereafter. On the same day, the plaintiff driven the above vehicle and stopped again on the road at the time when police officers arrive at the above vehicle's location 04:44 on the same day. The above police officers requested the plaintiff to take a drinking test at intervals of three times from 05:00 to 5 minutes from other police officers on the same day, but it can be recognized that the plaintiff failed to comply with the above recognition facts and evidence Nos. 4, 6 to 8, 5-2 and 6-6-2 of the same Act.