1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 ordinary and class 2 ordinary) as of March 14, 2016 pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report despite the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the traffic accident stated in the separate criminal facts (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6-10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant traffic accident is a Contact accident, and the first accident, the Plaintiff, too far left the site without having to take relief measures. Thus, the Plaintiff did not have any intention or awareness. (2) The instant disposition revoking the driver’s license for four years is too harsh to the Plaintiff, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff was a non-Contact accident; (b) the agreement with the victim was made; (c) the vehicle operation is essential to take measures to ensure the Plaintiff’s child-care center; (d) the Plaintiff did not take necessary measures for the reason that the instant accident was first committed on the part of the Plaintiff as a family owner; and (e) the Plaintiff was flick and has lived in good faith without any accident except for a violation of the prohibition of cutting after obtaining the license.

B. Sanction against a violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, a sanction may be imposed without intention or negligence on the violator, unless there exists any justifiable reason not to cause a breach of the duty, such as a circumstance that the violator does not have knowledge of his/her duty, or a circumstance where the performance of his/her duty cannot be expected to be anticipated, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du15139 Decided April 9, 2015 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24371 Decided June 28, 2012