The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

From March 26, 2020 to 20:0, the Plaintiff was parked in a company accompanying the Plaintiff after drinking at a restaurant around the 33-Mapo Station as Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu.

B Operation of a rocketing car, having arrived at the third floor parking lot of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Officetel (hereinafter “instant driving”). The Plaintiff was placed in the passage without properly parking the said vehicle in the said parking lot, and was set up in the driver’s seat without stopping it, and reported to 112 around it.

On March 27, 2020, the police, who called the police, driven under the influence of alcohol by the plaintiff, such as the details of a report on driving in the above parking lot on March 27, 2020, the reaction of drinking alcohol reduction, the retoxication of alcohol, and the smelling of alcohol, etc.

there are reasons to suspect;

In light of the above, the Plaintiff demanded a pulmonary test.

However, the Plaintiff rejected the police’s request for a measurement of drinking alcohol on three occasions (one point 00:52, the second point 01:02, and the third point 01:11) (hereinafter “instant refusal to measure drinking”). On April 24, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 ordinary) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to measure drinking alcohol in the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 7, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the disposition of this case as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's traffic accident did not occur due to the plaintiff's assertion as to legitimacy of the disposition of this case. The driving distance of this case is limited to 800 meters, the plaintiff's vehicle driver's license is necessary for the plaintiff's business travel, etc., and the driver is an important means to maintain his family's livelihood. The disposition