1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 21:00 on February 22, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff, while driving Category 1 and Class 2 ordinary car (license number): (a) on the roads of the Joint Fast School located in Young-gu 583-1, Young-gu, 583-1 at Suwon-si, the KAstunwon-gu, the KAWA, refused to comply with the police officer’s request for alcohol alcohol measurement without justifiable grounds; (b) by applying Article 93(1)3 of the Road Traffic Act on March 22, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1 and Class 2 ordinary car (license number) as of April 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff's assertion was caused by a dispute over the substitute driver's expenses while returning the plaintiff's vehicle to the business partner's employees and the driver's office after drinking, and the substitute driver's office set up the plaintiff's vehicle at one-lane and moved the vehicle to the side in order to prevent the accident.

In addition to the above driving circumstances, the traffic control police officers did not notify the plaintiff that the driver's license would be revoked if they refuse to take a drinking test; the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which only provides only the revocation in the case of refusal to take a drinking test, is merely the internal treatment criteria of the administrative agency; the plaintiff must take the head and the mother in the hospital and take care of the family's livelihood, and the plaintiff is responsible for taking various tax data from September 196 to his employee in the tax accounting office, and it is essential for the plaintiff to receive various tax data from the customer in the place where he had been working as an employee in the tax accounting office. In light of the above, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority,

B. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion contains the allegation that the instant disposition ground does not exist due to procedural illegality in the process of the police officer’s request for alcohol measurement, etc.