1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 2, 2016, around 01:40 on December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff moved back from the Han River Station to the Lee-won Station located in the front of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. On the back of the Han River Station, the Plaintiff, who was faced with victims who were on the lane to get a taxi in the vicinity of the above vehicle, was forced to suffer injury in need of approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment and around 3 weeks of the victim E, but failed to immediately stop and take necessary measures, such as providing relief to victims.

B. On February 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II ordinary) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff caused the instant traffic accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) and did not take necessary measures, such as causing the victims to be injured and aiding the victims.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on April 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus ought to be revoked, and even if not revoked, it should be changed to the disposition of suspension for 100 days of driver’s license.

1) At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not have any intention to flee because it was not aware of the occurrence of the instant accident or the fact that the victims suffered an injury, as at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not operate the rear-down device of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident. Moreover, the injury suffered by the victims is very minor and so annoying agent is merely an agent to the extent that it cannot be assessed as “injury” as prescribed by Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute “abru