1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who obtained a Class 1 ordinary motor vehicle driver’s license on October 18, 1997.

B. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff, as a person subject to a regular aptitude test, filed an application for a regular aptitude test at the Jeju driver’s license test on October 31, 2017, reported that “the Plaintiff had received medical treatment from a hospital due to an early illness” and was classified as a person subject to an occasional aptitude test pursuant to Article 88

C. On December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff participated in the Jeju driver’s license examination committee for the fourth driver’s aptitude decision in 2017, which was held at the Jeju driver’s license examination site, as a person subject to an aptitude decision, and was determined as a result of the deliberation.

On December 18, 2017, the Defendant notified the head of Jeju driver's license examination site of the result of the above deliberation, and on December 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of revocation of driver's license (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case") on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes "cases of failing to undergo or pass an aptitude test under Article 87 (2) or 88 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" under Article 93 (1) 9 of the Road Traffic Act.

E. On January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal claiming revocation of the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) during the occasional aptitude test process with respect to the Plaintiff: (a) delegated only one close appraiser without a traffic expert member; and (b) the determination of failure based on the result of the evaluation conducted by the close appraiser from a simple point of view is illegal by abusing or abusing discretion.

② The Plaintiff did not actively deal with the administrative appeal because it did not receive a written result of deliberation, which is a reason for failing an occasional aptitude test, and there is an error in administrative remedy procedure.

(3)