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 30, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that, around November 21, 2015, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident while driving a B-in-land bus from the 192 White Village 6-ro, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, on November 7, 2015, the Defendant did not perform its duty, such as providing rescue measures to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident while driving the B-in-land bus, and that the Plaintiff did not perform its duty, such as providing rescue measures.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on February 29, 2016, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said claim on April 19, 2016.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of facts cannot be deemed to have a duty to take relief measures, etc. against the Plaintiff, since it was difficult to recognize the victim’s injury at the time of the accident, and it is difficult to view that the victim’s injury requires immediate treatment.

(2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s abuse of discretionary power is engaged in the door-to-door sales business, and the driver’s license is essential, and the victim’s compensation is paid, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power because it is too harsh.

B. (1) According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 15 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff appealed from this Court 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 289, which was found to have been dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, it is recognized that the plaintiff did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report despite the traffic accident that the plaintiff injured the victim.

(2) The Road Traffic Act takes into account the degree of disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff as to whether the instant disposition was abused or abused or not and other various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff.