1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 28, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired the Class 2 motorcycle driver’s license, the Class 2 ordinary vehicle driver’s license on October 31, 1997, and the Class 1 ordinary vehicle driver’s license on January 10, 1998.

B. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff was detained in an investigation procedure due to a criminal charge.

(A) The plaintiff is currently in the execution of detention pending trial after the lapse of the period of punishment, which became final and conclusive by imprisonment on July 7, 2016, and the plaintiff is currently in the execution of the sentence (the expiry date is June 11, 2020).

On the other hand, the Defendant decided to notify the Plaintiff of the conditional cancellation of the driver’s license that “if the Plaintiff did not undergo a regular aptitude test by July 7, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not undergo a regular aptitude test by July 7, 2016, the expiry date of the driver’s license term, the Plaintiff’s license shall be revoked on July 8, 2017 following the following day.”

On April 24, 2017, the Defendant sent the above notice by regular mail to the Seoul Mapo-gu apartment and C, which is the Plaintiff’s domicile on the driver’s license ledger. On May 1, 2017, the Defendant sent the above notice by registered mail to the address above, but returned it by other reasons.

E. On May 16, 2017, the Defendant publicly announced the notice on the office building bulletin board and website.

(The disposition of revocation of a driver's license publicly announced as above is referred to as "the disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3 evidence, Eul's 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was a convict, and the Defendant, a police authority, was able to easily find out the fact that the Plaintiff was serving in prison even though he exercised considerable care. Thus, if a written disposition sent to the address of the Plaintiff at the time of detention was returned, the Defendant should have been notified of the disposition as a prison in the process of serving the Plaintiff, but the Defendant’s measure as a procedure of serving the public notice of the instant disposition constitutes a significant and obvious illegality and thus, the instant disposition is taken.