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

A. On June 21, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a Class II ordinary driver’s license.

B. On May 28, 2014, at around 22:03, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a BpD car, caused an accident that meets C (hereinafter “victim”) while driving the 24-way road at the office of education toward the original pharmacy at the office of education; (b) went away from the site.

C. On August 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident and caused the Plaintiff’s injury, but failed to comply with relief measures or reporting obligations.

On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal on December 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff did not have the intention to flee to the plaintiff at the time of leaving the site after the accident of this case. ② The speed of the vehicle at the time of the accident of this case is about 10km per hour, and the accident of this case is merely an accident where the plaintiff's elbow was in contact with the victim's elbow, not the victim's growth. In light of the victim's situation and the records of medical examination and treatment at hospital, it cannot be deemed that the victim suffered a necessary injury for about 3 weeks, and it cannot be viewed that there was no need to take relief measures due to the accident of this case at the time. In light of the above, the plaintiff did not have escaped after the personal injury occurred, and thus, the disposition of this case is an erroneous disposition that misleads the facts.2) The plaintiff argued that the disposition of this case is excessive since 2002.