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

A. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff, while driving a halogal car on December 23, 2015, while under the influence of 0.125% of alcohol content, caused a traffic accident to the same part of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City in front of 132, and caused an injury to one of the victims by causing the traffic accident on the road of 0.125% of the blood alcohol content.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on April 22, 2016, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said claim on May 31, 2016.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 25, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident was a minor contact accident, and the Plaintiff did not recognize the said accident, and it cannot be deemed that the victim’s injury requires immediate treatment. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had a duty to take relief measures, etc.

B. According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff was aware of the instant accident and escaped at the site, and the victim suffered injury due to the said accident, and the Plaintiff was appealed after being convicted of the facts constituting the instant non-measures in Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Ma667. Thus, it can be seen that the Plaintiff did not perform its obligations, such as site relief measures and reporting, even though the Plaintiff was aware of the traffic accident causing injury to the victim. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is inappropriate.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.