1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the newly raised argument by the plaintiff in the trial at the trial at the trial at the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the left bridge part of the victim E with the rear wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the victim E’s body in order to see the victim E’s pro-friendly arrest F in the process of crossing without permission. The Plaintiff saw the left bridge to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the instant traffic accident is deemed to have caused the victim E’s negligence, and thus, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff is responsible for causing the instant traffic accident, is unlawful.

B. (1) The duty to take relief measures and duty to report in the event of a traffic accident under Article 54(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act is reasonable to interpret that the driver of the vehicle concerned who caused the traffic accident shall be subject to the duty to promptly take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties caused by the traffic accident when the driver, etc. is killed or injured or damaged by the traffic accident, and the duty to take appropriate measures, such as providing assistance to victims and restoring traffic order, etc.

subsection (3) of this section.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1731, May 24, 2002). (2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the Plaintiff.