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 June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a rocketing car as of June 20:15, and went away without taking any relief measures, such as E, by causing a traffic accident on the two-lane road in the city of Speaker-si CD Co., Ltd. or the front letter.

B. On July 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 96(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the above facts; (b) rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on August 6, 2014, but the same year.

9. The dismissal was 16.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 4, Eul 1, 10, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not recognize the fact of a traffic accident, the Plaintiff could not maintain his livelihood without driving as it currently engages in the delivery business, and the circumstances under which navigation cancer treatment was given, the instant disposition constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power due to the Plaintiff’s excessive suspicion.

B. In light of the legislative purport of Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes that requires aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, revocation of driver's license on the ground of violation of the duty to take relief measures should be emphasized more than the disadvantage of the parties to be incurred due to the revocation of the revocation, unlike the cancellation of the general beneficial administrative act.