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 acquired a Class I ordinary driver’s license on September 17, 1986 and was engaged in the private taxi driving service from February 22, 2002.

B. On August 9, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of August 28, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an indecent act by force against the victim E (the age of 15) in the Dsi owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant taxi”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was living in the victim and the neighbors; (b) had been living in the church from the time when the victim was born; (c) had been aware of his grandparents and his father and father well-known; and (d) the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful even though the Plaintiff did not commit indecent act by force by using a motor vehicle; (b) the Plaintiff’s deviation from discretion; and (c) when the instant disposition is executed, the Plaintiff’s license for the personal taxi transport business, the only means of living of the Plaintiff’s family, was revoked; and (d) the Plaintiff continued to live as an exemplary driver for 50 years; and (e) the Plaintiff was recognized as an exemplary driver, and was also receiving an official commendation from the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. In full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 7 as to the plaintiff's assertion of mistake of facts, the plaintiff is in office as the head of the G church located in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City.