A. On September 25, 2010, at around 02:00, the Plaintiff obstructed traffic by driving the B rocketing three motor vehicles around the port of North Korea, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, along with the vehicles driven by the winners of the B rocketing 3 motor vehicles, and driving on a high speed of approximately 300 meters on a regular road.

B. On April 19, 2012, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (one-class, one-class, and two-class motor vehicles) pursuant to Article 93(1)11 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 91(1) and [Attachment Table 28] subparagraph 2 subparag. 13 and subparagraph 2(e) of Article 92 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On the other hand, the plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million with respect to the above traffic obstruction, and paid the above fine on June 2012.

Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, it was dismissed on June 12, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) that he/she belongs to an organization or obstructs traffic by being included in a large number of persons is difficult to predict the fact in the Enforcement Rule, which is the subordinate statute, since there is no similarity between the legal interest protected by the law and the importance of the crime, such as murder, rape, etc. required for the revocation of a driver’s license, and thus,

In addition, this is against the principle of excessive prohibition by excluding room for considering the individual nature and specificity of the specific case of traffic obstruction and allowing the revocation of driver's license in a lump sum even if the degree of illegality is weak.

(2) The plaintiff is in the first instance court.