2014Gudan1353 Revocation of revocation of driver's license

A

The Commissioner of the Gyeongnam-do Police Agency

March 25, 2015

April 14, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The revocation disposition of the driver's license issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 19, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the license for driving a motor vehicle for Class I large, Class I common, Class I common, Class II common, Class II common, and Class II motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol by 0.135% of the blood alcohol concentration on August 3, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 8, Eul 1 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) At the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, the Plaintiff: (a) opened a bridge wide to the driver’s seat; (b) was seated on the Plaintiff’s knee kne; and (c) performed most of the driving activities by C. The Plaintiff directly operated the driving vehicle in the D apartment parking lot. The Plaintiff’s direct operation of the driving vehicle was only a cab while driving the vehicle in the D apartment parking lot and driving the vehicle with the taxi while driving the vehicle; (c) the place where the Plaintiff was driving at the time does not fall under the road under the Road Traffic Act as a parking lot in the apartment complex, and thus, even if the Plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol, it does not constitute a ground for revocation of driver’

2) The Plaintiff is essential for a car driver’s license to engage in the freight trucking transport business and conduct his business. Therefore, if the car driver’s license is revoked, the instant disposition is an illegal disposition beyond the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too harsh, and thus, the instant disposition is revoked.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine the existence of the reason for disposition, and even if not bound by the facts established in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence in the administrative litigation. Thus, barring special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a criminal judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts against it are opposed to this, and a summary order is final and conclusive.

The same holds true even in the case of being determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 1, 199; 26). According to the evidence and the statements stated in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, the Changwon District Court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million (Seoul District Court Decision 201Da7881, Jan. 7, 2015; 201Da7881, Jan. 7, 2015) to the plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.135%, the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and the plaintiff was under the influence of 0.135% of the blood alcohol concentration of August 3, 2014; and 3 million won in the case of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Korean Supreme Court Decision 2014Da7881, Sept. 1, 2015).

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that he was driving directly at the time when he left the D apartment parking lot in this case, but it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the above summary order based on the evidence and witness C’s testimony alone. Rather, according to the above evidence, the Plaintiff voluntarily led the Plaintiff to the fact that he was driving by directly manipulatinging the vehicle driving stand at the entrance of the D apartment front of the D apartment door and the right turn to the left in the direction of Kimhae-si, and it is recognized that the investigation agency made a statement to the same effect. Furthermore, the part of the D apartment parking lot in the D apartment can be seen as a road as referred to in the Road Traffic Act in a place where many unspecified people can easily enter and use, since the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Next, considering the following facts: (a) whether to revoke a driver’s license on the ground of drinking alcohol is an administrative agency’s discretionary act, today’s mass means of transportation, and accordingly, the increase in traffic accidents caused by drinking driving, and the result thereof are frequently involved, the necessity for public interest to prevent traffic accidents caused by drinking driving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 197). Therefore, the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving should be emphasized as a general preventive measure rather than the disadvantage of the party to be incurred due to the revocation of the revocation, unlike the revocation of a driver’s license on the ground of drinking driving. According to the evidence presented earlier, it is clear that the Plaintiff engaged in an act such as directly manipulating a driver’s license on the ground of blood alcohol concentration of 0.135%, and thus, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act of driver’s license on the ground of Article 13 of the Road Traffic Act, which is disadvantageous and dangerous in the Plaintiff’s actual condition of driving.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition conducted within the scope of discretion, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Maximum number of questions