[자동차운전면허취소처분취소][공2001.9.1.(137),1870]
[1] The meaning of "any place used for general traffic", which is a concept of road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Traffic Act, and whether only a specific person or a person who has a specific building related thereto can use it and independently manage it (negative)
[2] The case holding that a passage in an apartment complex constitutes a "road" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Traffic Act
[1] According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 19 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 5712 of Jan. 29, 199), the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle on the road in accordance with its original method of use, and the term "road" means a road under the Road Act, a toll road under the Toll Road Act, and all other places used for general traffic. Here, the term "all places used for general traffic" means an open area actually used for the traffic of many and unspecified persons or vehicles, where there is a public nature of the general traffic police power for the purpose of maintaining order in traffic, etc., and only a specific person or a person related to such person can use it and does not include a place independently managed.
[2] The case holding that the apartment complex has a significant wide area, and the security guards have installed a guard room in many places, and it is conducted in the way of securing parking spaces for the residents other than the external vehicle access control, not for the external vehicle access control, and in reality, it constitutes the "road" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 5712 of Jan. 29, 1999) on the ground that the passage route in the apartment complex is open to the public for the purpose of maintaining the order of traffic, etc. on the grounds that the passage of many unspecified people and vehicles is permitted.
[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 19 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 5712 of January 29, 199) / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 19 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 5712 of January 29, 199)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1662 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3183), Supreme Court Decision 93Do828 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2198), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9566 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 299), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1848 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3500), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20755 delivered on March 27, 1998 (Gong198, 1233), Supreme Court Decision 201Do20719 delivered on December 10, 199 (Gong20501 delivered on December 27, 199)
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Commissioner of the Chungcheongnam-do Police Agency
Daejeon High Court Decision 99Nu1180 delivered on July 7, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
According to Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 19 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 5453, Dec. 13, 1997; Act No. 5712, Jan. 29, 199), the term "driving" means using a vehicle on the road according to its original purpose of use; the term "road" means any place used for a road under the Road Act, a toll road under the Toll Road Act, and other general traffic. The term "all places used for general traffic" refers to an open area for the traffic of an unspecified large number of people or vehicles, in reality, the public nature of which affects the general traffic power of an unspecified person, and only a specific building related to such person can be used, and the place independently managed shall not be included in such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1628, Oct. 9, 199; 200Do4968, Mar. 28, 1968).
On February 15, 199, the court below found that the above-mentioned taxi is located in the above-mentioned parking lot and the above-mentioned apartment facilities are not located in the 2nd apartment, and that the above-mentioned apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 3rd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 4th apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 1st apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 1st apartment 2nd apartment 2nd apartment 1st apartment 2nd.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on roads under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, as alleged in
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
In light of the records, the court below's decision that the defendant's disposition of this case revoked the plaintiff's driver's license is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to abuse of discretionary power, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)