1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the following parts.

(Other grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court is justifiable). [The part that was modified] “The last extension disposition was made (hereinafter “instant disposition”).” in the second instance judgment by the first instance court, “The last extension disposition was made on November 19, 2018 to extend the prohibition period again from November 23, 2018 to May 22, 2019 (hereinafter “the last extension disposition”).” in the third instance of the third instance judgment by “Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 23 through 26” in the third instance judgment by “Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 23 through 26.”

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition of this case, which was changed in exchange in this court, is without merit, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.

The previous lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition rendered on May 21, 2018 was withdrawn by the exchange change in this court, and the first instance judgment on this was invalidated).