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 concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Nos. 2 and 5 shall be referred to as “as the grounds for revocation,” and thereafter the date of revocation shall be specified as November 20, 2017.”

Part 3: The following shall be added to Part 15:

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should have specifically notified and recommended “the procedures for deliberation and resolution by the Deliberation Committee on Administrative Dispositions against Driver’s License”, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had an obligation to notify and recommend such procedures. Moreover, the Plaintiff, in the legal brief dated April 20, 2018 and the legal brief dated August 10, 2018, stated that “When he received a notice of cancellation of driver’s license from the Defendant but consulted with the Defendant, he/she filed an administrative appeal after being solicited to file an administrative appeal on the ground that the objection was not accepted by the administrative agent, and that it was possible at the time of filing an administrative appeal on November 27, 2017.”

5)The fourth page 5 is as follows:

The Plaintiff obtained Class 1 ordinary driver’s license on August 26, 1991 and Class 1 driver’s license on May 10, 1996, and has been individual cargo transport service as a cargo driver from October 1, 2008. Thus, as long as the Plaintiff is engaged in driving of a cargo vehicle which may cause a large traffic accident, it requires more attention than the general public.

On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff caused serious injury to one person due to a traffic accident. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff violated traffic regulations due to failure to operate a lightlight on April 3, 2014, and due to excess of the loading weight and loading capacity on June 25, 2014 and October 26, 2014.

The plaintiff's blood alcohol at the time when the plaintiff was controlled on the Toluene.