1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was issued a Class 1 ordinary driver's license on September 26, 1991.

B. On January 19, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class ordinary driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of February 21, 2015 by applying Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that “The Plaintiff was found to drive a B-class vehicle in a drunken state around 18:00 on January 11, 2015, but failed to comply with the demand of the traffic control police officer for a alcohol test without justifiable grounds.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on February 13, 2015, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s above claim on March 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The police officer illegally arrested and forced the Plaintiff to take a so-called so-called so-called “dacting test” was illegal. The instant disposition, which was taken on the ground that the police officer did not have a duty to comply with the request for a so-called “dacting test” was unlawful. 2) Considering the fact that the Plaintiff is engaged in private taxi operations that meet the requirements for a driver’s license and is responsible for the livelihood of his family members, the Plaintiff’s home-type and economic circumstances are difficult, and that the Plaintiff is driving safely while engaging in driving without any accident for a long time, the instant disposition is an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretion due to excessive suspicion to the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, we examine whether the request for a drinking alcohol measurement was illegal. In full view of the aforementioned facts, the Plaintiff’s trade name, around 17:00 on January 11, 2015, where Busan Shipping Daegu C is located.