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 August 23, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driving license.

B. On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff was detained in the Seoul Southern Detention House due to a criminal charge, and the judgment of conviction was finalized on April 27, 2017, and was released on July 13, 2018 upon the expiration of the term of imprisonment.

C. On the other hand, on March 26, 2018, the Defendant decided to notify the Plaintiff of the conditional cancellation of the driver’s license that “if the Plaintiff fails to undergo a regular aptitude test by June 7, 2018, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not undergo a regular aptitude test by June 7, 2017, the expiry date of the driver’s license term, the Plaintiff shall be revoked on June 8, 2018.”

On March 26, 2018, the Defendant sent the above notice to the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and the fourth floor, the Plaintiff’s domicile on the driver’s license ledger, by regular mail. On April 2, 2018, the Defendant sent the above notice to the above address by registered mail but returned on the grounds of “the recipient’s unknown”.

E. On April 24, 2018, the Defendant publicly announced the notice on the office building bulletin board and website.

(F) On February 15, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 19, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4 (if there is a tentative number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was a convict, and the Defendant must, as a matter of course, confirm whether the Plaintiff was detained or detained in the prison when the notification was returned, and if the disposition sent to the address at the time of the Plaintiff’s detention was returned, the Defendant should have been notified of the disposition to the multiple prisons. However, the Defendant did not perform its duty even though he did so.