1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 18, 1977, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license.

B. On November 26, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s above driver’s license as of December 30, 2014 on the ground that, around 01:30 on October 18, 2014, the Plaintiff driving a D vehicle on the road in front of the Busan-gu Busan-gu Busan-gu B store caused a traffic accident of one of the upper parties (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) and did not perform on-site relief measures and duty to report.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on December 26, 2014, but the said claim was dismissed on March 10, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was asked the victim E and F, who was landed from the instant vehicle after the instant traffic accident, to be fine. However, the Plaintiff was unaware of the need to take relief measures without any particular measure on the ground that both the victim E and F, who was on duty, left the scene. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff escaped without relief measures against the victim. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful. (ii) The Plaintiff is currently serving as a taxi driver and supports his family members. If the instant disposition is revoked, the Plaintiff’s traffic accident resulted in a serious trouble to the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood. The instant traffic accident occurred without permission due to the victim E’s night, and the Plaintiff’s economic difficulty as a current bad credit holder. In light of various circumstances, the instant disposition is an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. Whether there is a ground for action 1 or not, in fact, in accordance with Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.