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 August 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff continued to drive a B-car at a point 09:46 on April 27, 2018, at a point 32.8 km Seoul, at the 32.8km (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul”) and received the penalty points for the cancellation of the driver’s license by obtaining the penalty points of 250 points.”

B. On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on September 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 7, 13, 14, and 15 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the above violation was controlled by the ambling patrol, and the control method of inducing more than the given point to commit several violations at a short time without immediately regulating the violation, and based on this, it deviates from the operational purpose of the ambling patrol. The Plaintiff’s occupational emergency situation due to the failure of the automated machine even at the time of the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s violation was relatively well observed in the past, it constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

B. (1) Article 46-3 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a motor vehicle driver may revoke his/her driver’s license in the event of the above scambling operation, by repeating two or more of the nine acts, including the violation of signal or instruction, the median line, speed violation, the maintenance of safety distance, and the violation of overtaking methods, or by continuing or repeating one act, thereby causing harm to others or causing danger to traffic.

The disciplinary administrative disposition is discretionary in terms of social norms.