Refusal to Take Breathalyzer Test Within Apartment Complex... Supreme Court Rules "License Cancellation Is Unjust"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that refusing a breathalyzer test in an apartment parking lot cannot be grounds for license revocation. This is because the internal passageways of apartment complexes are not considered roads under the Road Traffic Act.

On the 26th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusook) upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of Mr. A, who had his driver's license revoked and filed a lawsuit against the Gyeongbuk Police Agency Chief to cancel the license revocation.

In August 2016, late at night, Mr. A was reversing a passenger car owned by Mr. B inside an apartment complex when he collided with a parked vehicle and moved about 30 meters. After reporting the accident, Mr. A was voluntarily taken to a police station and was asked to take a breathalyzer test but refused. The police revoked Mr. A's driver's license on the grounds that he did not comply with the breathalyzer request without justifiable reason, leading Mr. A to file a lawsuit.

The first trial court rejected Mr. A's claim, stating that the passageways inside the apartment complex are practically open to an unspecified number of people or vehicles, and that the claim that the place where Mr. A drove the passenger car was not a road as defined by the former Road Traffic Act was unfounded.

The second trial court reversed this decision. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating, "The apartment complex is enclosed by walls along its boundaries, blocking outside access, and vehicles must use two entrances?the main gate and the back gate connected to public roads?to enter the complex. Therefore, the passageway in question is a place difficult for general vehicles to use for passage."

The Supreme Court's judgment was consistent. The Supreme Court panel stated, "Since the place where Mr. A drove the passenger car was inside the apartment complex and does not qualify as a road under the Road Traffic Act, the grounds for the revocation do not exist, and there is no legal error in the lower court's ruling that deemed the revocation unlawful," dismissing the appeal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.