[1] Criteria to determine whether a part of passage outside the parking zone line of an apartment parking lot constitutes a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

[2] The case holding that the passage part within the parking zone partitioned by the chiller’s punishment cannot be deemed as a road for general traffic as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act between the building and the building in the apartment complex

[1] If a parking zone line has been constructed on the one side between the buildings in an apartment complex, it shall be deemed an apartment parking lot installed under the relevant provisions such as the Parking Lot Act and the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003). The issue of whether the passage outside the parking zone line is a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which is a place used for general traffic, shall be determined depending on whether the part is an open place for the purpose of maintaining the order of traffic, etc. in reality, in light of the situation of the management and use of the apartment complex, and it shall be determined according to whether only a specific person or a specific person related to it can be used and independently managed.

[2] The case holding that the passage part of the parking zone where a parking zone line can be parked by the vehicle in the apartment complex is merely a passage for parking the vehicle in that place between the building and the building in the apartment complex, and it cannot be viewed as a road used for general traffic as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act because it cannot be viewed as a road actually used as an unspecified number of people or vehicle traffic.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act, Article 31 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003) (see current Article 21 of the Housing Act) Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1662 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3183), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9566 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 299), Supreme Court Decision 98Do302 delivered on January 26, 199, Supreme Court Decision 99Do2127 delivered on December 10, 199 (Gong200Sang, 251)

Defendant

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2003No981 Delivered on September 24, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On April 3, 2003, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.131% of alcohol level around 20:08, the Defendant driven a 10m degree on the street side of the original apartment 209-dong-dong-dong 359-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

2. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's place where drinking driving is conducted as above is the place near the above apartment complex of 208 building near the above apartment complex and the 209 building, and the parking zone line is marked and a passage through which vehicles can pass between them. The dong side of the above passage is partitioned by apartment fence, and only the front side of the above passage is connected to the above apartment complex's emotional and rear door, and the above apartment complex is composed of 17 dong and 50 households, and the above apartment complex is composed of the entrance to the above apartment complex of 17 dong and the rear door is connected to the above apartment complex's passage through the center of the above apartment complex of 20 dong and the above apartment road traffic order is located in the above apartment complex of 20 dong, and the defendant's access to the above apartment complex of 20 dong-gu and the above apartment building of 3 dong-gu's entrance and parking lot is not regulated by the public health clinic or the above 3 gate.

3. The judgment of this Court

If a parking zone line on one side between the buildings in an apartment complex has been constructed in a parking zone where 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 former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply). Whether the part outside the parking zone line is a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which is used for general traffic, shall be determined depending on whether the part is an open place for the purpose of maintaining traffic order in an unspecified number of people or vehicles, or only a specific person or a person related thereto, who has a specific building, can use it and independently manage it (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do162, Oct. 9, 199; 9Do4969, Jul. 28, 1995; 96Do39696, Oct. 29, 196). 296

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the place where the defendant driven a drinking car is the place where the parking zone line is created within the "three-party parking zone" space between the building and the building in the apartment complex and the parking area corresponding to the apartment parking lot installed by the relevant provisions such as the Parking Lot Act and the former Housing Construction Promotion Act. Thus, even if the parking lot attached to the apartment that has been shut down is not physically controlled by the blocking facility or the security guard but without permission by some outside persons, the passage part of the parking zone is merely a passage for parking the vehicle at that place, and it cannot be viewed as a road used for general traffic as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the passage between the parking zone lines of this case constitutes a road used for general traffic, focusing on the physical management status of the apartment complex, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to roads under the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)