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

A. On December 3, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary car driver’s license (B) on December 3, 1990, and around 02:00 on March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff escaped without taking measures such as aiding and abetting the victim C driver’s racul in the front line of the industrial complex shooting distance, which was in the front line of the instant signal at the same four-lanes, and causing the victim D and one other to suffer physical damage equivalent to KRW 547,227, as it stops without providing relief to the said victims.

B. On May 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff that caused the instant traffic accident and did not take necessary measures; and (b) revoked the driver’s license as stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s allegation that occupational injury and the denial of escape (Chapter 1) did not recognize the instant traffic accident at all, and as a matter of course, it did not recognize the fact that the said victims suffered injury, the Plaintiff did not intend to escape. 2) The Plaintiff was driving an accident without fault for 20 years, the Plaintiff is unable to perform his duties unless the instant disposition is revoked as the head of E company, and the Plaintiff is unable to support his spouse and two children who are college students, and the Plaintiff is economically difficult at the expense of registration fees and household debts. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff also gave rise to previous and donations.