1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff had three times the history of being discovered through drinking driving in 2003 and 2010. On November 14, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (class 1 common) on November 5, 2018, acquired a driver’s license (Class 2 small-sized businesses) on November 5, 2018, and carried out a maternity practice under the name of “B”.

B. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiff driven a 12-meter distance on the front of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”), which was sent from police officers on the site on the ground that the Plaintiff’s horse is divided into the Plaintiff’s horse, and a large amount of smelling.

5. 1. 23:48

5. 2. From 00:02 to 00:02, the person was required to take a alcohol test on three occasions, but failed to comply therewith.

C. On May 14, 2019, the Defendant revoked all the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Defendant refused to take a drinking test.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 9, 2019, but filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

8. The dismissal was 20.

E. The Plaintiff was indicted by Seoul Eastern District Court 2019Kadan2082 on the ground that he/she refused to measure alcohol, and was sentenced to conviction on August 28, 2019, and the Plaintiff appealed with Seoul East Eastern District Court 2019No1287, but the appeal was dismissed on January 31, 2020.

[Identification Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and evidence No. 1 to 14]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around 23:00, after drinking alcohol at “E” restaurant located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff asked and waited for a substitute engineer for the restaurant operator; (b) but (c) the restaurant operator inevitably asked the restaurant operator to deduct the vehicle parked on the road side in front of the restaurant, thereby allowing two-meter mobile parking.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to see that there is a considerable reason to recognize that a motor vehicle was driven under the influence of alcohol when it is necessary for traffic safety and prevention of danger, which is the requirement for refusal of a drinking test.