Whether a yellow point installed by a construction company at will in the part of a road that connects the existing road and the rightway for road expansion construction constitutes a median line under the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents or a safety mark under subparagraph 1 of the proviso of the same paragraph (negative)

In addition, if a construction company opens a roundway for the construction project of a local highway for the extension of a local highway, the yellow line installed in the part connected to the existing road and the right-hand road is not installed by a person authorized to install the road under the Road Traffic Act or a person delegated by the construction company, it cannot be deemed a central line as provided in the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is nothing more than that installed by the construction company at its own discretion, and there is no data to recognize that the construction company had been installed at its own discretion, not installed according to the direction of the chief of the competent police station in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 of the Road Traffic Act, but obtained the approval of the chief of the competent police station after installing a yellow line, the above yellow line cannot be deemed a safety mark as provided in the proviso of

Article 3(2)1 and 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 64 of the Road Traffic Act

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

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2002No3806 delivered on March 26, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "the crime of injury by occupational negligence caused by traffic of vehicles shall not, in principle, be prosecuted against the express will of the victim: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case falling under the proviso thereof" and subparagraph 1 provides that "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of signals provided for in Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, or instructions of safety signs indicating the prohibition of traffic or temporary suspension of traffic by a signal apparatus provided for in Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act or police officer for traffic control," and subparagraph 2 provides that "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of signals provided for in Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act or crossing, internship or backward due to a violation of Article 57 of the Road Traffic Act" and Article 13 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency may set up a lane on roads when necessary for smooth traffic of vehicles and horses" and Article 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall set up a lane pursuant to attached Table 1."

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the yellow do not have any evidence that the yellow do not have any authority for installation under the Road Traffic Act, or that the yellow do not have any authority for installation under the Road Traffic Act, or that the yellow do not have any authority for installation under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases, if the yellow do not have any authority for installation under the Road Traffic Act, or the person who has been delegated with it, the yellow do not have any authority for installation under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases.

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the yellow do not constitute the median line under the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Corresponding

Furthermore, Article 3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (excluding the head of a Gun in a Metropolitan City; hereinafter referred to as the "Mayor, etc.") provides that if it is deemed necessary to prevent danger on the roads and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic on the roads, signal apparatuses and safety signs shall be installed and managed by the road manager in accordance with the direction of the mayor, etc. according to the provisions of Article 6 of the Toll Road Act. Article 4 of the same Act provides that "the kinds of signal apparatuses and safety signs under the provisions of Article 3, the method of manufacturing, and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs." Article 64 (1) of the same Act provides that "the person who intends to install new signs or excavate roads in accordance with the provisions of the proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Management of Road Traffic" shall be deemed to be one of the legitimate signs installed by the road management authority, and the person who intends to install new signs or excavate roads shall report them to the chief of the competent police station during the construction period of the road."

Although there was no part of the reasoning of the judgment below which was partially inappropriate, the court below is just to have determined that the yellow light of this case is not a safety mark under the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Disasters.

We cannot accept the allegation in the ground of appeal that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to central lines or safety signs under the Act on Special Cases.

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)