1. On September 4, 2013, the Defendant revoked the suspension of driver’s license granted to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2013.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 10, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a B taxi on August 14:10, 2013; (b) began from a horse to which green signal, etc. entered in the direction of a new return underground road in the direction of a new return underground road in the direction of the right-hand side of the CPoter car (hereinafter referred to as the “other vehicle”) which entered the right-hand side of the moving direction and left the intersection from the left-hand side of the moving direction.

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

On September 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of driver’s license for 42 days on the ground that the Defendant violated the duty of safe driving (one person, one injured person) due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of safe driving (one person in middle and one person in injury) even though the Plaintiff had already entered the intersection and proceeded with the green, since there was a relative vehicle that had been going through through the intersection after passing through the intersection, and thus, the Defendant violated the duty of safe driving (one person in middle and one person in injury) and imposed a total of 27 points on the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff constitutes more than 40 points in total, including 15 points in other fines imposed earlier (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal regarding the instant disposition on September 26, 2013, but was dismissed on November 12, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The intersection in which the plaintiff's argument is sought is that the direction of the plaintiff's traffic accident of this case is driven by a vehicle signal at the speed of five lanes, and there is no vehicle signal, etc. that controls the progress of the vehicle at the direction of the other vehicle. Although the plaintiff entered the intersection by viewing that the signal prior to the passage of the vehicle is turned on, the other party entered the intersection without the vehicle's progress signal, and then the other party enters the right side from the left side of the direction of the plaintiff's proceeding immediately after the completion or termination of the pedestrian signal without the vehicle's progress signal.