The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol level 0.119%, was taking the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle owned by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant vehicle was driving the instant vehicle at a low slope level, but on the contrary, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle under the influence of alcohol level, and therefore, the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant bears the burden
2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
The court of the lawsuit of the administrative litigation shall judge whether the facts are true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity by free conviction, taking into account the purport of the whole pleadings and the result of examination of evidence.
(2) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, are not bound by the court of a lawsuit in an administrative litigation, but the facts already established in the relevant criminal trial are significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation. Thus, barring special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the relevant criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant administrative litigation, it cannot be recognized
(Supreme Court Decision 80Nu18 delivered on January 27, 1981). B.
The judgment below
The reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the court below reveal the following facts:
(1) On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff-gu E is driving while driving the Plaintiff on the top of the instant vehicle in order to bring the Plaintiff under the influence of alcohol at around 19:10.