1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On September 17, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired Class A driver's license (license number : B) for a Class A driver's license.

On 17:00 on 17:00 on 17:1, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a road along the private road of Taesung-dong in the same city, along the same direction, in the same direction of the 2-dong of the city, along the vehicle ahead of it in the same direction while driving at a speed below the speed.

The plaintiff is proceeding as it is while neglecting his duty of care to secure and proceed with the necessary distance to avoid the collision with the vehicle ahead of it.

The E Costasch Rexroth, which was driven by the victim D(56 years old, south), was rapidly driven by the E Costasch Rexn vehicle to stop the signal atmosphere, but the vehicle did not avoid the situation and the defendant was shocked with the front part of the vehicle driven by the defendant.

The Plaintiff, by the foregoing negligence, got the victim D with salt, tensions, and tensions of scarcitys that require approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and the victim FF (FF) of the feass in the feass in the feass and tensions that require approximately two weeks of medical treatment. At the same time, the Plaintiff got feass and tensions of the feass and tensions of the feass in the feass and damaged the damaged vehicle to their 377,166 won, but failed to immediately stop and rescue the damaged vehicle.

On July 21, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class 2 ordinary driving license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident involving two ordinary persons as above and did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report.

On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, 2015, 8, 18, and the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no dispute.