자동차운전면허취소처분취소
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 September 26, 2019, at around 07:10, the Plaintiff driven a B-car level under the influence of alcohol with 0.149% of alcohol level, from the parking lot adjacent to the Gyeonggi-si D Apartment-si, to the same apartment E-dong underground parking lot.
B. On October 10, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Class II ordinary driver’s license against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%, which is the base value for revocation of the license (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. On December 16, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on February 11, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 15 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The place where the Plaintiff driven is an apartment complex, which is a parking lot in the apartment complex, and cannot be deemed as a road under the Road Traffic Act as a complete parking area. 2) In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s driving in the apartment parking lot, reflects its nature, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license in light of its business characteristics, the Plaintiff’s family support, the Plaintiff’s payment of loan obligations, and the Plaintiff’s payment of loan obligations, etc., the instant disposition should be revoked because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing or abusing discretion.
B. According to the evidence submitted prior to the determination of mistake of facts, the Plaintiff moved the instant vehicle from the previous D parking lot in Gyeonggi-si, to the same Dong C apartment underground parking lot in the same Gu, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was prevented from entering the apartment underground parking lot in the apartment complex, and the apartment complex exit is prevented in the apartment complex entrance.