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 1, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as stated in the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim, on the ground that: (a) on August 20, 2016, the Defendant caused a traffic accident involving a bus going on the right side while driving a mountain-pon vehicle on the front side of the Guri-si B on August 20, 2016, which caused a traffic accident involving a bus going on the right side of the mountain-poned vehicle, to inflict an injury on three passengers on the bus, which requires medical treatment for each three weeks; and (b) the Defendant failed to perform its duty such as rescue measures.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on December 16, 2016, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said claim on January 10, 2017.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition】 Facts-finding, Gap evidence 1, 11, Eul evidence 1 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) As long as the Plaintiff’s assertion of mistake was unable to recognize that the Plaintiff had contacted with the damaged vehicle, the collision at the time of the accident was insignificant, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had a duty to take relief measures, etc.

(2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s abuse of discretionary power is an emergency medical specialist and the driver’s license is essential and agreed with the victims, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power because it is too harsh.

B. (1) According to the facts stated in Gap evidence No. 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 5 million due to the facts constituting the instant non-measures in the instant case in December 19, 2016, which was issued a fine of KRW 5 million. Therefore, it is recognized that the plaintiff failed to comply with the on-site relief measures or duty to report even if the traffic accident the plaintiff injured the victims.

(2) Whether the discretion is abused or abused.