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 August 20, 2016, the Plaintiff was driving a B car on August 20, 2016, and left the scene, as is, the part of the victim E driver’s vehicle behind the driver’s seat of the victim E driver’s vehicle moving from the right edge to the right edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is going into the right edge of the Plaintiff’s driving seat of the driver’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), while driving a B car in front of the “D” restaurant located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu.

B. After the instant traffic accident, the victim E, a driver of the victimized vehicle, issued a medical certificate that requires approximately two-day medical treatment due to the chest stroke, tension, etc., and the victim F, a victim F, who was on the top of the damaged vehicle, requires approximately two-day medical treatment due to the impairment of the second stroke, etc., and the victim G, who was on the back stroke of the damaged vehicle, was issued a medical certificate that requires approximately two-day medical treatment into the stroke stroke.

C. On October 25, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the driver’s license (Class I ordinary) of a motor vehicle as of November 11, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff escaped from the site without taking necessary measures despite killing and injuring people due to the instant traffic accident.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 13, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 26 (including each number, if there are separate numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff was clear about the victim's vehicle at the time of the accident of this case, but the plaintiff thought that it was not against the victim's vehicle at the time of the accident of this case and there was no intention of escape since he left the place. 2) Even if the plaintiff recognized the traffic accident of this case, the accident of this case is insignificant and it is against