1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 8, 2018, in order to avoid a vehicle stopped on the right side while driving a Cbea cruise vehicle on the front side of the Guri-si B in order to avoid the vehicle stopped on the right side, the Plaintiff: (a) obstructed the center line; (b) shocked the left part of the DD (hereinafter “victim”) crossinging on the left side from the right side to the right side of the vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”); (c) was inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the chilled salt, tension, etc. requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment; and (d) was stopped immediately and left the site without taking measures such as aiding the victim.

Accordingly, on March 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the first-class ordinary driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff caused the instant accident involving one regular person, and the Plaintiff did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report even though he/she did not cause the instant accident.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] A] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 14, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case, the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered injury to the extent necessary for relief due to the accident in this case. At the time of the accident in this case, the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not recognize the fact that the victim suffered injury, and thus, the plaintiff is not obliged

In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to recognize that he was injured by the victim, and that there was no traffic obstacle, that the Plaintiff paid the agreed amount to the victim, that the Plaintiff was smoothly agreed on, and that it is difficult for his family members to maintain their livelihood if the driver’s license is revoked due to the operation of a high-speed truck, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused its discretionary power.