Whether the act of a public official in charge of traffic control failure merely gives attention to the number of drivers who violate the duty not to overtake at the stopping place, but neglecting his duty in violation of the duty of good faith.

A police officer working on a walk, who has a traffic control, has observed and taken her hand to go ahead of the vehicle in a designated stop, and failed to pass ahead at the designated stop, and the driver shall not pass ahead at the designated stop. It cannot be deemed that a police officer is a desirable worker, who is a police officer, and is negligent in performing his duties such as violating the duty of good faith.

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The Minister of Home Affairs shall correct the litigation performers of Kimchi fever.

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu140 delivered on June 30, 1976

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows.

In other words, the plaintiff 15 October 15, 1975 10:26 10:26, the plaintiff worked on a walking in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Man-dong, and the traffic control was conducted by Kim Gam, who is trying to overtake the vehicle in front of it at the designated stop, 100 meters prior to the designated stop, so that he cannot overtake the vehicle in front of it, and the plaintiff stopped once and stopped the bals on one stop, and paid attention that the above driver cannot overtake it at the designated stop. Examining the record in order to recognize this fact, the court below is legitimate, and there is no other unlawful ground of violation of the rules of evidence, such as error in the preparation of evidence in violation of logical or empirical rules.

As seen above, the Plaintiff’s exercise of due care against Kim deceased-man should be deemed to be a desirable worker duty who is a traffic police officer as determined by the lower court, and it cannot be said that he neglected to perform his duties, such as violating the duty of good faith as a police officer, as alleged by the Defendant. It cannot be said that the lower court committed an unlawful act in the absence of permission of the Defendant’s filing of an application for resumption of oral argument, even if it

In addition, the above act of the Kim Sspon cannot be said to be in violation of Article 11-2 and (2) of the Road Traffic Act or Article 31 of the same Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, as the argument is asserted. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on traffic offense or by misapprehending the legal principles on

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

In this decision, the opinions of the judges involved are consistent.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)