1. On April 3, 2012, the Defendant’s revocation of the license granted to the Plaintiff on April 3, 2012

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 2, 2010, around 01:36, the Plaintiff: (a) occupied the road parallelly with other vehicles using the 1st wharf in the north-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon at the 1st wharf road; and (b) started at the same time according to the reception, and opened a so-called “Rags” to drive a seat at a speed of approximately 300 meters.

B. The Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class I, class II, class II, class II, and class II motor vehicles) pursuant to Article 93(1)11 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the National Police Agency and its affiliated agencies pursuant to subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Office Regulation of the National Police Agency and its affiliated agencies, March 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the Plaintiff interfered with general traffic by interfering with the general traffic of the Rags as above, pursuant to subparagraph 2 and subparagraph 2(e) of Article 92 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On the other hand, on April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to suspension of indictment against the crime of traffic obstruction, etc. by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office.

Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, it was dismissed on May 22, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 5, 6, and Eul Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The act of obstructing traffic belonging to the Plaintiff’s assertion organization or multiple persons does not have similarity with the crime of murder, rape, etc. required for the revocation of a driver’s license, and it is difficult to predict the fact in the Enforcement Rule, which is the subordinate statute, as the grounds for revocation, because it is not similar to the protected legal interest or the importance of the crime

In addition, the driver's license is granted in a lump sum, even if the degree of illegality is weak, to exclude the possibility of considering the individual nature and specificity of the specific case of traffic obstruction.