Whether the act of beyond the center line of yellow solid lines is permissible in order to pre-stop a bus stopped on a one-lane road (negative)

In a case where a central line is installed on a road, vehicles and horses shall pass along the right side from the center line of the road. However, when intending to pass ahead of another vehicle on a road where the width of the right side part of the road does not coincide with that of the National Road Management Act, the left side of the road can be verified, and only when there is no concern to obstruct the traffic in the opposite direction and the overtaking is not prohibited or restricted by safety signs, the passing over the center or the left side part of the road can be allowed. However, according to Articles 3 and 4 of the Road Traffic Act, and Articles 3, 10 and 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Annex 1), the central line mark is a road sign indicating the central line of the road in accordance with Article 13 of the Road Traffic Act among safety signs, and the yellow solid line among them cannot go beyond the center line. Thus, even if a bus ahead of the yellow solid line was stopped and stopped after a stop, it cannot be said to go beyond the center line.

Article 12(3) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 3 and 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 96No868 delivered on March 21, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the instant request for summary judgment and relevant evidence, it is evident that the Defendant was found guilty of having proceeded beyond the median line and filed a claim for summary judgment. Therefore, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by finding the Defendant guilty of facts constituting an offense for which no trial has been filed.

2. The Defendant voluntarily acknowledged that the bus which was in progress prior to the trial of the first instance and the court of the court below stops, and even if based on the employment evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law such as incomplete hearing in the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. According to the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act, where a median line is installed on a road, vehicles and horses shall pass along the right side from the median line of the road (Article 12(3) of the Road Act): Provided, That when intending to pass ahead of a road with a width of not more than six meters, the left side of the road can be verified, and only when there is no concern to obstruct traffic in the opposite direction and the overtaking is not prohibited or restricted by the safety signs, it can pass through the center or the left side of the road (Article 12(4)3 of the Road Traffic Act). Meanwhile, according to the safety signs of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 3, 10 and 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and [Attachment 1] of the Road Traffic Act, safety signs of the central line cannot pass beyond 13 of the Road Traffic Act, and thus, the central line cannot pass beyond 10 lanes of the yellow line (see attached Table 1 of this case).

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the defendant's act constitutes Article 113 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act (as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 12 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is a clerical error) is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the related statutes.

4. In light of the records, there is no ground for illegality as pointed out in the ground of appeal in the judgment below, even after examining the records. All of the arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)