logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.01.19 2017구단33001
자동차운전면허취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was driving at the front side of the C pharmacy located in Gangseo-si B at around 20:10, while under the influence of 0.124% of blood alcohol level, and caused a traffic accident that causes damage to the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “dacting”).

B. On October 17, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common and class 2 common) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on December 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The disposition of the instant case is not a “road” under the Road Traffic Act, and there is no ground for the disposition of the instant case. 2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was in exclusive charge of commuting to and from 10 team members, and the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle to move and park without any intention to drive the vehicle at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Determination 1) As to the assertion of absence of the grounds for disposition, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a road under the Road Act, a toll road under the Toll Road Act (b) and an agricultural and fishing village road under the Agricultural and Fishing Villages Improvement Act, and other places where it is practically necessary to ensure safe and smooth traffic of unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses (the place falling under any of the items (d) as “roads”.

According to the statements and images of Gap evidence 12-1 to 7, 16-1 to 3, and Eul evidence 10, the plaintiff shall not only be the front parking lot of the pharmacy in Gangseo-si B.

arrow