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 November 21, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a light-line B B B B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and proceeded to the intersection of the “D” building located in Busan East-gu C from the coastwise to the intersection of the village of the village of the road, while moving to the intersection of the road of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city

B. On December 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license as of January 11, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff caused the instant accident and did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report despite having caused the instant accident.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on May 24, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not have the intention of escape because the Plaintiff did not recognize the occurrence of a traffic accident because it was in a state of temporary unknown consciousness due to low-blood shock at the time of the instant accident. Since the Defendant mispercing such fact, it was unlawful since the Defendant rendered the instant disposition. 2) Considering that the Plaintiff who abused discretion is engaged in the transportation of sound equipment, the Plaintiff is in need of a driver’s license for the purpose of maintaining livelihood, there was no criminal record of the same kind of crime, and that the Plaintiff agreed with the victim, the instant disposition was an abuse of discretionary power

B. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the absence of grounds for disposition 1 is determined.