1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 08:40 on January 27, 2014, issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a B camping car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) on the front of the construction site of the relevant forest apartment located in Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and caused a traffic accident with one ordinary person; and (b) the Plaintiff escaped without performing relief measures or duty to report to the victim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion first, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's duty to take relief measures against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have occurred because it is difficult to see that the victim suffered injury due to the above traffic accident because he did not rescue the victim, and that the victim's injury might cause inconvenience to the diversification of blue and blue values, but it does not cause hindrance to daily life. Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the victim escaped without providing relief is unlawful.

B. The phrase "when the driver of an accident does not take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act after killing or injuring a person due to a traffic accident" under Article 93 (1) 6 of the Road Traffic Act refers to the case where the driver of an accident, even though he knows that the victim was killed or injured, leaving the scene of the accident before fulfilling his duty to take necessary measures, such as aiding or aiding the victim, causes the situation in which the identity of the person who caused the accident can not be confirmed, and Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2563 Decided Jan. 5, 200; 203.