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 May 25, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license (B). Around 00:45 on March 23, 2017, with a view to moving the Plaintiff’s rocketing car car parked on the street around D located in the Permitted-si Area C while under the influence of alcohol.

Along on the left side of the F vehicle, the upper part of the F vehicle was shocked by the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

At the moment when G (the age of 56) who observed this, stopped the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and resisted the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff immediately stopped the vehicle and escaped without taking measures such as aiding the said victim, even though G (the “instant traffic accident”) caused the victim G to inflict a bodily injury, such as the crypum dump, which requires approximately two weeks medical treatment, on the part of G (the “instant traffic accident”).

B. On May 10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff that caused the instant traffic accident and did not take necessary measures; and (b) issued a disposition revoking the driver’s license stated in the preceding paragraph as of May 19, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that occupational injury, and denial of escape (Chapter 1) caused by the instant traffic accident was that: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any injury to G due to the instant traffic accident; and (b) the Plaintiff did not have any intent to escape because the Plaintiff did not recognize the fact that G suffered any injury. (c) The Defendant’s mistake in the application of the Defendant’s Airmark formula (Chapter 2) (Chapter 2) is a male, without any special ground.