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

A. On March 13, 2019, from around 14:28 to 14:40 on March 13, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) operated a BM i8-lane from around 32 km to the point from around 23 191km away from the 32km Incheon East Highway to the point of 191km; (b) proceeds at the average speed of 151km/h, 180km/h; and (c) proceeds at the speed of 151km/h, 180km at the highest speed; (d) has violated the method of overtaking seven times; and (e) has violated the duty of prohibition of career change; and (e) has not continuously secured the safety distance with other vehicles, thereby causing danger and danger to traffic.

As above, the Plaintiff was given a total of 175 points, such as given points in violation of speed 15 points, 70 points in violation of speed 15 points, 60 points in violation of duty of prohibition of change of course six times, and 30 points in violation of duty of prohibition of change of course, and 175 points in addition to given points.

B. As above, when the Plaintiff’s total sum point of 175 points for the year, the Defendant applied Article 93(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) to the Plaintiff on April 4, 2019, “the instant disposition” to revoke a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 motorcycles) by applying Article 93(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018).

C) On April 12, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but dismissed (the ruling date is not clear in the records). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was a summary indictment under Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 201Da3403 on May 23, 2019. The Seoul Northern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million with respect to the instant criminal facts to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2019, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time. 【The fact that there was no dispute over recognition, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and evidence Nos. 4 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments No. 4 through 8.

2. The case.