1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 01:30 on January 27, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a two-lane of the three-lane road in front of the Sejong-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) involving the victim’s driver’s driving who has driven the two-lane of the three-lane road in front of the Sejong-dong Office to the Tayang-dong Office, while keeping the two-lane right-hand turn at the intersection of the distance, while making a turn-hand turn-hand turn on the right-hand part of the victim’s driver’s driving who proceeded with the first lane, following the left-hand part of the said car.

On March 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) as of March 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff caused the instant accident and inflicted injury on the victim and did not take necessary measures or report, such as aiding and abetting the victim.

On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 8, 2017.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was found to have caused the instant accident and thereby suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tensions, and so on, but failed to take measures to rescue the victim, etc., such as aiding and abetting the victim, and was subject to a judgment of KRW 5 million on December 7, 2017 (Seoul District Court Changwon District Court 2017 High Court 200,71).

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have suffered injury due to the instant accident, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful since the grounds for its disposition are not recognized.

B. The following circumstances recognized by the statements and images of Gap evidence 3 through 9, Eul evidence 5, and Eul evidence 7, namely, the instant accident is in progress by the victim while driving a taxi.