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 21, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired Class I ordinary driver’s license (license number: B).

B. On May 29, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the above driver’s license against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff, around 12:50 on May 5, 2014, caused a traffic accident involving three persons while driving a vehicle on the street near the D station located in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget-gun C, leading to a traffic accident involving three persons while driving a vehicle on the street, and failed to comply with on-site relief measures and reporting obligations.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, 9, 12, 14, and 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff was unable to regard the other party as the vehicle, there was no fault, and there was no intention of escape, and thus did not violate the duty of on-site relief after the accident.

B. The instant disposition is unlawful as it deviatess from and abused discretion, considering that the Plaintiff was driving as an accident without fault for 30 years, was engaged in community service activities, and was engaged in the supply of food materials and needed to drive.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following circumstances, the judgment of the non-existence of the grounds for disposition is examined: Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 19, 20, 21 (including paper numbers), Eul's evidence Nos. 4 through 8, and 15 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff's act of violating the duty of field relief at the time of the accident, and the intention of escape is acknowledged. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case based on the premise that the violation of the duty of relief measures after the accident of this case is recognized is legitimate.

① The instant accident is intended to change the vehicle line for the change of the Plaintiff’s vehicle line.