1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff, as a traffic accident (personal damage: one square meter) violating the duty of safe driving, has been given a mark of 15 points, which is given a mark of 25 points as a traffic accident (personal damage: one person on hand) violating the method of change of course on October 5, 2018, which is charged as a retaliation driving on October 21, 2018, and is given a mark of 10 points, which is given a mark of 15 points as a mark of a traffic accident (personal damage: one person on hand) violating the duty of safe driving on December 11, 2018.

B. As above, when the Plaintiff’s total sum point of 155 points for one 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 the ground that “the total sum point of 155 points for one year exceeds 121 points” to the Plaintiff on December 4, 2018, and “the instant disposition” is “the instant disposition.

(c) On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 20, 2018, but dismissed (the date of adjudication is not clear as to the record). 【The fact that there is no dispute as to the ground of recognition, Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 2 through 9 (which has a serial number), and the purport of the entire statement and arguments, including a serial number,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is a second-class disabled person with disabilities in order to make up for three times a week to the hospital, and supports a woman with poor mobility, and maintains his livelihood through salking, etc. In light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the driver's license is essential, and the situation that the plaintiff would urgently take into account the situation of the situation, such as the situation that the plaintiff was caused by blood transfusion to the left arms due to the blood-related disease at the time of the disposition of this case, and the situation that the plaintiff would urgently go to the hospital is being taken into account. The disposition of this case is too harsh, and thus, it erred by exceeding the scope of the discretionary authority or by abusing discretionary authority.

B. Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who falls under any subparagraph shall revoke his/her driver's license.