1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 피고는 2017. 8. 25. 원고에게 “원고는 2017. 7. 22. 양산시 B 앞 도로변에서 단속경찰관으로부터 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았으나, 06:22경부터 06:41경까지 약 19분 동안 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 4회에 걸쳐 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.”는 이유로, 자동차운전면허취소처분(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라 한다)을 하였다.

B. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 18, the purpose of all pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was parked on the side side at the time and did not have a drinking, there is no reasonable ground to recognize that the plaintiff was driving a drinking, and there is no reason to believe that the plaintiff did not comply with the police officer's request for the measurement of drinking, and there is no reason to refuse or refuse the measurement of drinking because the police officer's response to the request for the measurement of drinking.

In addition, considering the Plaintiff’s occupation and age, health status, family’s livelihood, etc., the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary authority.

B. (1) With respect to the existence of the grounds for disposition, if deemed necessary for the safety of traffic and the prevention of danger, or if deemed necessary for the confirmation of a driver's driving under the influence of alcohol, the police officer may request the driver to take a drinking test after the drinking test, unless it is clear that it is impossible to confirm whether the driver's driving under the influence of alcohol is under the influence of alcohol, and if the driver fails to comply with it, the crime of non-compliance with the drinking test is established.

Supreme Court Order 9 February 2012