1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around 22:40 on July 30, 2018, the Plaintiff, holding a first-class driver’s license, driven QM5 car, and driven from the TM5 car to the E Hospital surface in front of the D elementary school located in Gwangju Mine-gu, the part of the front part of the victim’s vehicle (FM5 vehicle) who was parked behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the negligence of inserting the back-of-the-way engine in which the driver was sent a signal from the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the EM5 vehicle in front of the D elementary school located in Gwangju Mine-gu, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim by immediately stopping the damaged vehicle.

B. Accordingly, on September 12, 2018, the Defendant revoked the above driver’s license on the ground that, by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2018, the personal injury was caused due to drunk driving,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal on December 4, 2018.

On the other hand, on January 10, 2019, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (in the case of the instant traffic accident) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (in the case of the accident) in relation to the instant traffic accident.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. It was true that the Plaintiff’s 1 disposition non-existence of the grounds for action caused contact between QM5 vehicles and the Defendant G 5 vehicles due to the malfunction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle language. However, the instant accident was in contact with the victim’s vehicle by leaving the Plaintiff’s vehicle behind the accident, and is in contact with the victim’s vehicle at narrow intervals and at low speed, unlike the ordinary vehicle accident.