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. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 15, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a B car truck on October 15, 2016, and driven a two-lane of the two-lane B car-line road in the direction of the fish shed, following the Plaintiff’s negligence that did not walk out a new one; (b) discovered the two-lane off the two-lane off the offway after parking the vehicle on the road along the direction of the road, and delayed detection of the two-lane off the two-lane off the offway while driving the two-lane of the two-lane B car-line road in the direction of the fish shed; and (c) caused a traffic accident that shocks into the ground and dies; and (d) one of the two-lane is in need of medical treatment for at least six weeks.

B. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the penalty points of 115 points for the instant traffic accident (i.e., the 15 point of death (10 point of violation of the duty of safe driving) (i.e., one of the 90 points of death), and rendered a decision to revoke the driver’s license (type 1 and class 1 common) on the ground that, when adding up to the 15 point of the given penalty points (in August 25, 2016, it was before being amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 121, Jun. 2, 2017; hereinafter referred to as “Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act”) under the criteria for revocation and suspension of driver’s license (hereinafter referred to as “standards for revocation and suspension of driver’s license”), which is the criteria for revocation of driver’s license under the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(c) On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection to an administrative disposition against a driver’s license with the Defendant, but was rejected on February 17, 2017, and filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition on April 26, 2017, which was after the instant lawsuit was filed, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 18, 2017. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, A’s 1 through 4, 7 evidence, and E’s 1 through 11, respectively.