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 December 15, 2018, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident while operating a vehicle for the vehicle for the vehicle B in front of the Gu in Ansan-si on the front of the Gu, and after receiving a report at around 05:22 on the same day, the Plaintiff was subject to the control of drinking driving from a police officer dispatched, but rejected the measurement.

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

On January 8, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure alcohol in this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on February 27, 2019, but was dismissed on April 9, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 4 through 8 (including Serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff actively cooperates in the investigation after the refusal of the alcohol measurement of this case, and used the usual driving, and that the Plaintiff suffers from economic difficulties to visit the customer to the crowdfunding business operator, etc., the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abused discretion.

B. According to Articles 93(1)3 and 44(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), if a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement despite reasonable grounds to recognize that a police officer was under the influence of alcohol, the defendant should revoke the driver’s license, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have a discretionary power to decide whether to revoke the license, taking into account the Plaintiff’s circumstances, etc.

On a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit.