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 February 11, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driving license as of March 7, 2015 pursuant to Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that, around January 22:10, 2015, the Plaintiff was found to have driven a B-class car under the influence of alcohol in front of the digging bridge at the center of the mouth of Busan, but was found to have refused to take a drinking level without justifiable grounds.

B. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on June 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. There was no reasonable ground to believe that the Plaintiff had been under the influence of alcohol more than 0.05% at the time when the Plaintiff received a demand for a measurement of alcohol from a crackdown police officer.

Even if it is not so, the plaintiff requested the suspension of the drinking test only when it is demanded to take a drinking test 8th time by the continuous drinking test of the crackdown police officer, and it cannot be viewed as the refusal of the drinking test.

Meanwhile, it is due to the malfunction of a device due to interference with radio frequency by a respiratory measuring device that the Plaintiff did not take drinking in the respiratory measuring instrument seven times or seven times, even though the Plaintiff responded to the demand of the police officer to take a alcohol test. Therefore, in light of such circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have refused a alcohol test by the enforcement officer.

Therefore, the instant disposition is an illegal disposition that deviates from or abused discretionary power.

B. The proviso of Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act does not comply with a police officer’s measurement despite reasonable grounds to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol.