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.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. When a person who has obtained a driver's license (excluding any student license; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) falls under any of the following cases, the commissioner of a district police agency may revoke the driver's license (including any driver's license within the scope; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or suspend the validity of the driver's license for a period not exceeding one year according to the standards determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior, pursuant to Article 93 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act:

Provided, That in cases falling under subparagraphs 2, 3, 7 through 9 (excluding cases where the regular aptitude test period expires), 12, 14, 16 through 18, and 20, the driver's license shall be revoked.

2. The person who has violated the latter part of paragraph 1 or the latter part of paragraph 2 of Article 44 again violates paragraph 1 of the same Article and again violates paragraph 1 of the same Article, if he/she does not interpret that it applies only to only one driver's license, he/she may cause a defect in violation of the principle of proportionality with the administrative agency's abuse of authority.

However, the above provision of the Road Traffic Act is intended to protect the lives, bodies and property of the people by revoking a driver's license of a person who repeats the driving of a motor vehicle, and to ensure public safety related to the road traffic, and it cannot be said that the risk of repeated driving of a motor vehicle depends on

Therefore, there is no basis to interpret the above provision of the Road Traffic Act as limited to one driver's license.

In addition, the plaintiff on October 2004.