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 7, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a string vehicle on March 7, 2019, and the victim, whose name cannot be known, was charged with special intimidation using the said vehicle at the intervals of sounding the string of the vehicle.

On March 20, 2019, the Defendant imposed the penalty points of 100 (hereinafter referred to as “the first penalty points”) on the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing reasons. (B) On July 6, 2019, the Plaintiff was imposed 40 (hereinafter referred to as “the second penalty points”) with the penalty points of 40 (hereinafter referred to as “the second penalty points”) from the Defendant on the same day on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff, while driving a same vehicle on the same day as at around 17:07, in the course of changing the course from one lane to two lanes; (b) the Plaintiff interfered with the course in which the victim C was driving; (c) the Plaintiff’s act of generating noise for about 1 minute 12, without justifiable grounds, has continued

C. The Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first-class ordinary and large-scale driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s aggregate production point was 140 points for one year, and that the annual aggregate production point exceeded 121 points on September 2, 2019.

On September 6, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and on October 22, 2019, the said claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's No. 1, 5, 6, 18, 20 evidence, Eul's No. 1 through 4 (including number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the absence of the Plaintiff’s ground of disposition 1 did not pose a threat to the damaged vehicle at the time of imposing the first penalty points, the penalty points were imposed illegally only depending on the other party’s statement, and the second penalty points were given in the sense of warning the taxi that changed the vehicle suddenly at the time of imposing the second penalty points, the light light was blick without good cause.