The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, at around 04:00 on June 29, 2019, driven the Crocketing car volume on the road of four-lanes in front of the Heungdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, and driven along two-lanes, but was stopped under the new subparagraph at the front of the front bank, and got off the part of the driver behind the Hasta, which was stopped under the new subparagraph (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), with the front part of the Hasta (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the said victims, even though the Plaintiff suffered an injury for about three-day medical treatment, and sustained an injury for approximately two-day medical treatment from the E who was accompanied by the above Handa, the Plaintiff immediately stopped and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding and aiding the said victims.

On July 30, 2019, the Defendant revoked a driver’s license (Class 1 common) on the ground that “A driver’s license (Class 1 common) was revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim in the instant traffic accident.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on September 3, 2019, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on October 29, 2019.

On July 16, 2020, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Plaintiff to a conviction of one year and two years of suspended execution on the ground of criminal facts that “The victims suffered injuries due to the instant traffic accident, and at the same time, they stopped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victims, even if they damage the franchise,” and the said judgment was finalized on July 24, 2020.

(hereinafter “Related criminal judgment” (hereinafter “relevant criminal judgment”). In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 1 through 21, and the purport of the disposition in this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case after the traffic accident in this case, the plaintiff confirmed the victim’s status and discussed the agreed amount of physical damage.