Not more than 8,00 4,00

Attorney Yellow-ray et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-dae, Counsel Park Jae-young

Litigation performers 100

Litigation Costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On July 17, 2014, 200: Around 00, the Plaintiff driven a car of 59du000, K9: Around 02: Around 00, the Plaintiff went through the direction of Do governor from the Do governor on the road above the Do governor of the Yansan-gu Yani-gu Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon, and went away without taking measures such as aiding the 1,3000 Hadon Madon Madon Madon to the right side while changing the vehicle line to the right side to escape.

B. On October 8, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of November 3, 2014 on the ground of the instant accident and escape.

C. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the relevant administrative appeal on January 14, 2015.

【Unsatched Facts, Gap 1, 11 evidence, Eul 1-3, 10, 11 evidence (numbered statements) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) left the scene after the instant accident occurred, but on the day of the instant accident: 09:07, the Plaintiff reported the occurrence of the traffic accident by directly speaking to the police station on the day of the instant accident to the effect that he is the traffic accident perpetrator. Therefore, in the event that the Plaintiff did not take measures, such as providing assistance to casualties immediately after having caused the traffic accident, but he voluntarily reported within 48 hours, the Plaintiff constitutes “in the event that the Plaintiff reported within 48 hours,” and thus, the Defendant should be subject to the disposition of suspension of driver’s license as prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act related to Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] 3(b)(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the instant case”). Nevertheless, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license.

2) In addition, although the Plaintiff caused the instant accident due to a sudden driving, and the punishment due to a drunk driving was made to leave the site, the damage caused by the instant accident is minor, and the victims are not punished against the Plaintiff. In addition, in addition to the Plaintiff’s passage to a new and renewable energy business across the country, the Defendant’s disposition in this case constitutes a case of deviation from or abuse of discretionary authority.

3) Accordingly, the instant disposition must be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the above claim (A. 1), Article 93 of the Road Traffic Act provides that in the event that a driver who has killed or injured any traffic accident stops immediately and does not take necessary measures, such as aiding persons who have caused the death or injury, or does not report the occurrence of an accident to a police officer or a national police station without delay, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency may revoke the driver's license or suspend the validity of the driver's license within one year, and Article 91(1) and 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act [Attachment 28] provide that the driver's license shall be revoked if Korea is caused by a traffic accident, such as causing the death or injury of a person due to a traffic accident and failing to take relief measures, but "voluntary report" is granted within 48 hours after the occurrence of the traffic accident, 30 points or 60 points at the time of the report, respectively.

Meanwhile, “When a person runs away without taking necessary measures or making a report under Article 54(1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim,” means a situation in which it is impossible to determine who caused an accident by leaving the scene before the driver performed his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victim, even though he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed and wounded. In light of the above, the purpose of the provision is to encourage the Plaintiff to report the occurrence of an accident as soon as possible, by requiring the Plaintiff to cancel the driver’s license in principle in the case of escape after the occurrence of an accident, while allowing the Plaintiff to file a voluntary report within 48 hours, so as to resolve the accident as soon as it is impossible to determine who is the subject of the disposition to reduce the driver’s identity, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have known of the accident’s voluntary report to the police station prior to the occurrence of the accident.

C) Even if the above Plaintiff’s act is considered as voluntary report as alleged by the Plaintiff, the criteria for revocation and suspension of driver’s license under the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act [Attachment Table 28] are nothing more than the provisions of the administrative agency’s internal business regulations, such as the handling standards for revocation and suspension of driver’s license, and the procedure for disposition. Thus, the legality of the disposition on revocation of driver’s license should not be determined only by the above disposal criteria, but also by the provisions and purport of the Road Traffic Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Du5773, May 30, 1997, etc.).

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a voluntary report as stipulated in the instant Enforcement Rule, it does not immediately mean that the instant disposition was unlawful solely on the ground that the Defendant rendered the instant disposition differently from the content of the instant Enforcement Rule, but only when the instant disposition was an unlawful act of deviation or abuse of discretion in light of the provisions and purport of the Road Traffic Act, the instant disposition is unlawful. As seen below, as long as it is difficult to view the instant disposition as deviating from and abusing the discretionary authority, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the above argument (whether or not there is deviation or abuse of discretion)

In light of the above circumstances and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) as a motor vehicle accident occurred frequently as a result of the mass traffic accident and the results thereof are significant, it is highly necessary for the public interest to have the driver who caused an accident die or injured a person first in the event of the occurrence of a traffic accident; and (ii) to have the driver who caused an accident die or injured a person first in the event of the occurrence of a traffic accident; and (iii) to have the driver take appropriate relief measures accordingly, if the cancellation of a driver's license is made on the ground that the driver caused an accident and left the present place without taking necessary relief measures after causing the traffic accident, it should be more serious than the disadvantage of the person who would suffer from the cancellation, unlike the cancellation of the ordinary beneficial administrative act; and (ii) it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s ground that the Plaintiff did not have any inevitable circumstance to leave the present place without taking relief measures due to the instant traffic accident (the Plaintiff also acknowledged that the Plaintiff left the place of accident due to drinking, i.e., the Plaintiff’s 3000 st st st am.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Road Traffic Act-related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 54 (Measures to be Taken When Accidents, such as Driving of Motor Vehicles, etc.) (1)

(b) When any goods are damaged (hereinafter referred to as "traffic accident"), the driver and other crew members of the relevant motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "motor vehicle driver, etc.") shall immediately stop the motor vehicle and take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties.

(2) In cases under paragraph (1), the driver, etc. of the vehicle shall be present at the scene of police officers.

A police officer shall report, without delay, the matters falling under each of the following subparagraphs to the nearest national police station (including a police station, police station, and branch office; hereinafter the same shall apply) where the police officer is absent from the scene. It is evident that only a vehicle in operation has been destroyed and damaged, and the police officer has escaped from preventing danger on roads and smooth communication:

(2) if such action is required, this provision shall not apply.

1. The place where an accident has occurred;

2. The number of casualties and degree of injury;

3. Items damaged and the extent of such damage;

4. Other measures, etc. taken.

(1) When a person who has obtained a driver's license (excluding any student license; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the commissioner of a district police agency may revoke the driver's license or suspend the validity thereof for a period not exceeding one year according to the standards set by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration: Provided, That where such person falls under subparagraphs 2, 3, 7 through 9 (excluding cases where a regular aptitude test has been completed), 12, 14, and 16 through 18, the driver's license shall be revoked: < Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013>

6. Necessary measures or measures under Article 54 (1) or (2) after killing or injuring any other person in a traffic accident;

In case of failure to report;

Enforcement Regulations of the Road Traffic Act

Article 91 (Criteria, etc. for Cancellation and Suspension of Driver's License) (1) Revocation and suspension of driver's license pursuant to Article 93 of the Act;

standard to suspend (in the event of a violation of traffic regulations or an occurrence of a traffic accident, such violation and

Standards for penalty points imposed according to the degree of damage, etc. and pursuant to Article 97 (1) of the Act;

The standards for prohibiting the driving of motor vehicles, etc. shall be as shown in attached Table 28.

[Attachment 28]

Criteria for revocation and suspension of a driver's license (related to Article 91 (1))

2. Criteria for revocation:

A person shall be appointed.

3. Individual criteria for disposition of suspension;

(c) When he/she causes a traffic accident while driving any motor vehicle;

(1) As a result of an accident, given marks

(2) Standards for penalty points due to non-compliance with measures, etc.

A person shall be appointed.