1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are different from the allegations in the first instance court. However, even if the reason why the plaintiff emphasizes again in the first instance court's trial re-examines the evidence submitted in the first instance court, the need for public interest in order to achieve the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be less somewhat unfavorable than that of the plaintiff's suffering. Thus, the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court that deemed the disposition of this case to be lawful within the scope of discretion is recognized.

Therefore, the reasons for the statement in this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following: “(3) the Plaintiff without obtaining a license for a stolen vehicle on October 16, 2006, with the traffic classification on August 27, 2012 (the Central Line Intrusion), with the traffic accident caused on February 28, 2017 (the physical and personal damage, one of the two), and on May 19, 2017, with multiple traffic offenses such as violation of the prohibition of use of portable telephone during driving on May 19, 2017.” Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.