Whether a parking zone is prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, provided that the parking zone line on one side between the buildings in the apartment complex can be parked by the vehicle;

If a parking zone line has been constructed on one side between the buildings in an apartment complex in which a vehicle can park, it shall be deemed an apartment parking lot installed under the relevant provisions such as the Parking Lot Act and the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and the issue of whether the passage outside the parking zone line is a road used for general traffic as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act shall be determined according to whether the part in question is a place where a general police right for the purpose of maintaining traffic order in an unspecified number of people or vehicles, or a place where a person who has a specific building related thereto can use it and voluntarily manage it, but since the parking zone in the parking zone and the parking lot are applied in preference to the two characteristics of the road and the parking lot, it shall not be deemed a road as provided in the Road Traffic Act.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 19 and Article 19-2 of the Parking Lot Act, Article 31 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act

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

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Gyeonggi-do Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu5924 delivered on June 15, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) comprehensively conducted evidence of the Plaintiff’s time, and found that the above vehicle was parked in front of the entrance and exit of Non-Party 2 at the above-mentioned apartment site located in the front of the Dong name apartment complex (the front door is adjacent to the general road outside the apartment complex, and the other side of the apartment complex is adjacent to the above apartment complex), and determined that the Plaintiff was parked in front of the above 101 parking spaces for the above 10 parking spaces because it was not allowed for the above 10-party 1 and the above 10-party 1 and the above 10-party 1 and the above 1-party 20-party 1 and the above 1-party 2-party 1 and the above 1-party 2-party 1 and the above 1-party 2-party 1 and the above 1-party 2-party 1 and the above 2-party 2-party 1 and the above 1-party 2-party 1 and the above 1-party 2-party 2.

2. According to the record, the above parking lot is installed in the Dong apartment because the parking zone that the above Dong name line was created is registered as the resident of the Dong name apartment, and the above parking lot is deemed installed in the Dong name apartment.

Parking lot means a parking lot installed inside a building, a golf driving range, or other facilities that cause demand for parking in an urban planning zone pursuant to Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act, which is provided for the users of the building or facilities or for public use by the head of a Si/Gun as the person who constructs or installs the facilities in the building, a golf driving range, or other facilities that cause demand for parking within an urban planning zone pursuant to Article 19 of the same Act. According to Article 19(3) and (1) of the same Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 6(1) of the same Act and Article 19(1) of the same Act (in case of apartment houses with a size of 150 square meters or more, the standards for installation are not applicable only to apartment houses under Article 31 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 31 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 27 of the Regulations on Housing Construction Standards, etc.

Therefore, if a parking zone line between the buildings in an apartment complex has been constructed on one side in which a vehicle can park, it shall be deemed an apartment parking lot installed pursuant to the relevant provisions such as the above Parking Lot and Housing Construction Promotion Act. Whether the passage outside the parking zone line is used for general traffic and is a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, it shall be determined according to whether the part in question is an open place for the purpose of maintaining traffic order and order in an unspecified number of people or vehicles in reality, or whether only a specific building for the purpose of maintaining traffic order can be used and managed independently by a specific person or a person related thereto, and the parking zone in the parking zone and the parking zone are applied with two characteristics, and it shall not be deemed a road as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do1574, Jan. 25, 1994; 93Do1574, Jan. 193Do2901, Feb. 29, 1993).

3. Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff parked a vehicle on the road outside the parking zone line as it was recognized by the lower court, the lower court, as evidence of its recognition, stated the evidence No. 4, No. 5-1, No. 2, and No. 4-18, and No. 10, and Non-Party 2’s testimony of the lower court. Of the above evidence, the evidence No. 9-2 and No. 10, each of the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was exposed to drinking “in the same apartment before the same apartment,” and the evidence No. 11, No. 11 stated that “the same name name name name name name name name name name name name name name” in each of the statements No. 9 and No. 10 stated “A............” in the street on the street” as well as the document used by the police, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff is not a specific one out of the parking zone since it is difficult to use it as an abstract issue or out of the parking zone.

On the other hand, according to the video of the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2 (each photograph) cited by the court below, the passage outside the parking zone line of the same food store, which the plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol, shows that there is a cost for displaying goods to the place where the parking zone line was installed, and the goods sold are stored, so it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's vehicle could not go back to the place. Furthermore, the witness of the court below 2 also testified that the non-party 5-2 was the vehicle in front of the cargo vehicle indicated in the evidence No. 5-2, and that the above cargo vehicle was parked in the same way as the parking zone line, that is, the vehicle is parked in the same way as the parking zone line, and that the above cargo vehicle is not parked in the parking zone line, so the testimony of the court below and the non-party 2 of the witness of the above evidence No. 5 of the court below did not support the fact that the plaintiff driven out of the parking zone line, but rather, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's assertion that it did not coincide with the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff parked a vehicle on the road outside the parking zone line and moved behind it. In this regard, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a ground for misunderstanding this point.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)