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 September 3, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to revoke the first-class ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff committed rape or indecent act by force using a motor vehicle around September 21, 2012.
B. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said administrative appeal was dismissed on November 26, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition merely committed a pet act within a passenger car with the consent of B, and did not intend to commit rape using a motor vehicle. 2) The Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition with no authority to institute a public prosecution regarding attempted rape with respect to B, and the Plaintiff was deprived of the Plaintiff who was subject to a non-prosecution disposition with no authority to institute a public prosecution under the name of preventing public danger without properly determining whether the crime of attempted rape was established. The instant disposition that deprived of the Plaintiff who was subject to a non-prosecution disposition with no authority to institute a public prosecution is unlawful or unlawful.
3) Unlike the case where a motor vehicle, etc. is used as a tool of a crime, the applicable law of the disposition of this case, which is unconstitutional, provides that a motor vehicle, etc. has contributed to a certain degree in carrying out such criminal act, and that the driver’s license should be revoked without room for considering the specific form of such criminal act, etc., is in violation of the minimum infringement doctrine, and the disposition of this case based on such applicable law, which is unconstitutional, is also unlawful.