1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Class II in the disposition of revocation of the license for driving motor vehicles issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014

1. Around 00:35, on March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a B B B B B B B B-Korean passenger car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). On April 28, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class B, class B, and class C) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the Plaintiff’s above alcohol driving on April 28, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") No. 2. Of the disposition of revocation of the license for the driver's license, the disposition of revocation of the license for the driver's license for the driver's license for the driver's license for the driver's license for the driver's license for the driver's license.

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's defense prior to the merits was filed with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and the defendant's assertion that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it did not go through an administrative appeal under the Road Traffic Act. However, the lawsuit in this case is seeking confirmation of invalidation, which is not revoked of the disposition in this case, and is not subject to restrictions such as

3. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a vehicle that cannot drive with a Class II driver’s license, and thus, the instant disposition shall not be revoked en bloc with a Class II driver’s license. Accordingly, the instant disposition is null and void with significant and apparent defects.

B. 1) In order to make the legal doctrine on the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course null and void, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition. The defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law and is objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, and function of the law should be considered from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995).