(a) Whether a parking zone in the parking zone line within a hospital falls under a road provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act;

(b) Whether a part of a vehicle falls under driving on a road where it enters the road outside of the parking zone line;

A. Since the part of the passage, other than the parking zone line, among the routes in a hospital, is used for the passage of an unspecified number of people or vehicles, it constitutes a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and the parking zone in the parking zone line (a hospital attached parking lot) has two characteristics of the road and the parking lot, and the provisions of the Parking Lot Act shall be applied preferentially to the above attached parking lot, so it shall not be deemed a road under the above Road

(b) A vehicle with a large of three meters in a parking zone and the total amount of the vehicle does not deviate from the parking zone line, but some of the vehicles shall be deemed to drive on the road when they enter the road beyond the parking zone line.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Do2901 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 786). Supreme Court Decision 92Do1662 delivered on October 9, 1982 (Gong1992, 3183) 92Do3046 delivered on March 12, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1191) 92Nu18047 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2302)

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 93No525 delivered on May 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the defendant's appeal that the place where the defendant driven was not a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, the court below stated that the defendant's vehicle attached to the hospital is not a closed place for parking at the hospital, but a large number of unspecified persons or a public place for driving the vehicle. Thus, it is sufficient to regard the defendant's vehicle as a road under the Road Traffic Act.

However, according to the records, the defendant's vehicle driving place is a passage within the above hospital, and the parking zone line is constructed on one side of the surface, and the remaining part is used for the passage of people or vehicles. In this case, since the passage part other than the above parking zone is used for the traffic of many and unspecified persons or vehicles, it is used for other general traffic as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, i.e., roads, and parking zone in the parking zone (attached parking lot of the above hospital) in the above parking zone is a place with the two characteristics of the road and the parking lot as well as the above attached parking lot, and this does not constitute a road as provided in the above Road Traffic Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2901 delivered on January 19, 193). Therefore, even if the court below stated that the parking zone of the above hospital itself constitutes a road as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, it is not appropriate to recognize that part of the parking zone of the defendant's vehicle operation within the whole parking zone of the above hospital.

In addition, since the defendant's driving of a vehicle was not limited to three-meter high, it cannot be said that the above act does not violate the social norms. In conclusion, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)