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 April 30, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired Class I driver’s license for large vehicles (B) on September 29, 201 and Class I driver’s license for large vehicles (B).

On June 13, 2015, at around 07:04, the Plaintiff driven a CY car and proceeded ahead of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City into a elim zone elimb, from the elimb.g., the two-way hospital. On June 13, 2015, the Plaintiff saw the parts of the arms of the victim walking on the road to the right side of the vehicle, and led to a traffic accident involving the injury of the salt ebbbow and tension in the part of the arms elbow requiring a daily treatment, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.

B. Accordingly, 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 on July 28, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on November 3, 2015, but was dismissed on December 8, 2015.

【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's assertion 1 stated that the plaintiff did not have the victim's place of birth immediately after the accident, and that the victim was fine for this, and that the victim received the salt and tension in the part of the elbbow part requiring treatment for about one week and received physical treatment twice thereafter, so it cannot be deemed that the victim suffered injury as provided by Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time. In light of the above, there was no need to take relief measures against the plaintiff at the time. 2) Even if it is recognized that the plaintiff suffered injury to the victim due to a traffic accident and escaped without taking relief measures, the plaintiff did not agree and sufficiently compensate with the victim, and that the plaintiff was against the plaintiff, it is too harsh to the plaintiff.

B. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is under the influence of the plaintiff.