1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 14:20 on November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) caused two-way injury to the victim D by shocking the victim D with the said vehicle in front of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (b) did not take necessary measures or report, such as providing assistance to casualties.

B. Accordingly, on January 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s first-class large and first-class ordinary driving license as of January 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 12, 2016 on the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on June 21, 2016.

On the other hand, on April 2016, the Plaintiff was released from prosecution by the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle) on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to take relief measures after the traffic accident

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 12 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is so minor that the Plaintiff could not be aware of the occurrence of the accident, and thus cannot be deemed to have been obliged to provide relief to the victim. The victim first left the site while deeming “the match home,” and the Plaintiff did not deviate from the site with the intention of escape.

Even if the Plaintiff left the field without any necessary relief measures or report, the damage is very minor, the victim and the Plaintiff agreed to it smoothly with the disabled, and the Plaintiff is working at the Disabled Association as an elderly disabled person, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful since it is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff against the principle of proportionality.

B. Judgment 1.