1. On March 16, 2012, the revocation of the driver’s license (Class 1 common) issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 01:50 on September 26, 2010, the Plaintiff was investigated on the suspicion that he/she interfered with traffic by driving two motor vehicles racings on two occasions in total, including the so-called “dracks”, which start at the same time, using the scarn vehicle at the 1st wharf of the north-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon.

B. The Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary) 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 28] and [Attachment 28] subparagraph 2 subparag. 13, and subparagraph 2 (e) of Article 92 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the National Police Agency and its affiliated agencies, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the Plaintiff interfered with the general traffic by Rags.

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

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

Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, it was dismissed on May 8, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

가. 원고의 주장 (1) 원고는 인적이 드믄 시간대에 통행하는 차량이나 사람이 없는 틈을 이용하여 짧은 거리를 자동차 경주 하였을 뿐이므로 교통방해죄가 성립하지 않는다.

(2) Obstructing traffic belonging to an organization or contained in a large number of persons is unlikely to be similar to the crime of murder, rape, etc. required for the revocation of a driver's license under the Act, and thus, in the Enforcement Rule, which is the lower law, to be defined as the grounds for revocation