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

A. On September 11, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 and Class 1 ordinary) as of October 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of September 15, 2018, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff driving of D vehicles on the front side of the road located in Busan-si, B on August 15, 2018; (b) caused a traffic accident to shock the victim E (the age 9) who crossinged the crosswalk to the left side of the said vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (c) caused the said victim to take measures to rescue and report on the right side, which requires treatment for about two weeks; and (d) the Plaintiff did not perform on-site relief measures and duty to report.

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 30, 2018.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The accident of this case was very insignificant, and it can be naturally cured even if there was no special treatment because the right light and slots, the right part, the right part, and the right part, etc. suffered by the victim at the time were so minor that it could not be evaluated as an injury. In full view of the circumstances of the accident of this case, the details of the accident of this case, the injury part and degree of the victim, the plaintiff's stop after the accident, and the fact that fundamental relief measures were taken as a result of confirming the status of the victim, etc., the plaintiff did not need to take relief measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time. Therefore, the disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful, although the plaintiff could not be deemed to have escaped without performing his duty to take relief measures on the ground that the plaintiff did not report the accident at the time or have left contact.