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 March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff driving a car at around 18:40 on March 2, 2018, and proceeding three-lanes in front of the intersection three-lane distance, which is located in the intersection of Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon.

The Plaintiff got away without taking measures such as providing relief to the victim while destroying the front part, etc. of the victim’s car, which is the front part of the victim’s B driver’s car driven by the Plaintiff, due to the shock of the passenger car driven by the latter, resulting in the injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks, and at the same time, destroying the part of the victim’s car, the front part of the passenger car, etc. to be repaired.

B. Accordingly, on April 20, 2018, the Defendant applied Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2018, and rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (class 2 ordinary) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on August 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff did not recognize the fact of the traffic accident at the time of the instant case, and there was no intention of escape. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful. Even if not, the Plaintiff was a class 4 disabled person, and was operating the mixed real estate agent’s office, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier by the Plaintiff at this Court on September 7, 2018 (2018 Godan1219)

1. The facts that the appeal was dismissed on July 15, 201 and the judgment became final and conclusive are significant since it was sentenced to the imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the crime committed by the preceding sentence, and the appeal was filed by the Supreme Court for 20 years.