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 November 29, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired Class 1 ordinary car driving license (B).

On September 12, 2013, around 01:10 on September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff driven a CK7 car so that it proceeds in front of an E-cafeteria located in D in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and caused a traffic accident where the victim walking on the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the proceeding led to a traffic accident where approximately two weeks of unknown whereabouts need to be treated, such as damage to legs, etc., and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as immediately stopping the vehicle and providing relief to the victim.

B. Accordingly, on November 11, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license by applying Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on February 10, 2014, but was dismissed on May 20, 2014.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Description of Evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asked the victim’s state while living together with the victim for a considerable period after the accident occurred, and the victim suffered minor injuries without any credit, and the victim merely received diagnosis at Hanwon only after a day from the date of the accident and completed simple treatment, such as physical therapy, during the period from the day of the accident, and without any specific post-treatment, etc., it cannot be said that there is no need to take relief measures against the victim at the time. 2) Even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff had escaped without taking relief measures, even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff got injured by a traffic accident and escaped without taking relief measures, the degree of the Plaintiff’s violation and the degree of damage to the victim is insignificant and there is no clear evidence about the actual shock, and there is no need to take relief measures against the victim at the time of the accident, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant violated the principle of profit and bridge.