[1] Criteria for distinguishing between parking and stopping under the Road Traffic Act

[2] In a case where the driver of a freight without a driver's license temporarily parked the freight, whether such accident can be deemed as an "accident that occurred while driving the freight without a driver's license" under the provisions of the automobile mutual-aid (negative)

[1] According to the provisions of subparagraphs 17 and 18 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, in a case where a driver is on board a vehicle for driving and has left the vehicle for driving, or where the driver has left the vehicle with his/her suspension, but he/she could immediately drive the vehicle in a situation where he/she has been objectively viewed as being able to stop within five minutes, it constitutes "stop". From an objective perspective, it constitutes "parking immediately regardless of the passage of the time during which the driver has suspended his/her vehicle when he/she cannot drive the vehicle immediately."

[2] The term "driving" under the terms and conditions of a motor vehicle mutual aid refers to using the motor vehicle on the road as stipulated in Article 2, subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act (including the operation of the motor vehicle) according to its original use, barring any special circumstance, so "parking at least" is not included in "driving", and in light of the purpose of the operation of the motor vehicle, it can be anticipated that the motor vehicle would temporarily park the motor vehicle without a driver's license if it had been parked and then drive the motor vehicle without a driver's license, and then proceed to the final destination. However, it cannot be viewed as an accident that occurred during the "motor vehicle without a license" under the mutual aid terms and conditions, considering the series of operational processes with a vehicle in the state of parking as a whole.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 17 and subparagraph 18 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act

East Sea Traffic Corporation

National Freight Trucking Association (Attorney Choi-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na51525 delivered on May 13, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 2 subparagraph 17 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "parking" means a state in which a vehicle waits for passengers, stops for loading cargo, or the driver of such vehicle is unable to immediately drive because it has left the vehicle due to breakdown or other reasons, and "stop" means a state in which the vehicle stops for not more than five minutes and is in a state of stop other than parking. Accordingly, in a case where the driver is in a state in which the vehicle stops without boarding the vehicle on board the vehicle for the purpose of driving, or is in a state in which the driver is objectively deemed to be able to immediately drive the vehicle, if the vehicle stops within five minutes from the vehicle, and if the driver is unable to drive the vehicle immediately, it constitutes "stop" regardless of the passage of the suspended hours, from the vehicle.

On May 12, 1994, Nonparty 1 driven the cargo of this case at around 03:0, and driven the second line on the road located in Daejeon Pungdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu, and set up the above cargo vehicle at the point of the accident of this case, which led to about 2,3 minutes after the end of the accident. However, the court below did not find the above cargo vehicle which was set up before the second line of the above road, and died as the front part of the above cargo, without finding the above cargo vehicle at the front part of the above vehicle. In light of the legal principles as to the above cargo vehicle, it was just at the time to see that the above cargo vehicle was parked in a simplified restaurant near the road of this case, and there was no possibility that the above cargo vehicle was parked at the point of the accident of this case, including the point of the accident of this case, and there was no possibility that the above cargo vehicle was parked at the point of the accident of this case, and there was no error in the law as to the point of the accident of this case.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the automobile mutual-aid clause of this case, the mutual-aid association compensates for damages caused by the "operation of a motor vehicle in accordance with the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc." (Article 1 of the Terms and Conditions), but the "damage caused by an accident caused by an accident caused by a driver of a motor vehicle in check-out without obtaining a license" (Article 10 (1) (1-6 of the Terms and Conditions), and the "driving" in this context refers to the "driving of a motor vehicle in accordance with its original method of use (including operation)" as provided in Article 2 (19) of the Road Traffic Act, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the "parking" at least is not included in the "driving."

As duly admitted by the court below, if the freight of this case was parked at the time of the accident, the accident of this case cannot be deemed to have occurred "the time when the driver drives without a license" as stated in the above mutual-aid terms and conditions. Thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense on the premise that the accident of this case was an accident while driving without a license is just and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit. In light of the purpose of operation of the freight of this case, the non-party 1, the driver of the freight of this case, can expect that the driver of the freight of this case, who was the driver of the freight of this case, would drive the freight of this case without a license and proceed to the final destination after making a temporary parking in the absence of the accident of this case, but it cannot be deemed to have been an accident during the "unlicensed Driving" under the above mutual-aid terms and conditions, considering the series of operation processes with the accident in the absence of the accident of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)