The case of exempting the person who is responsible for the combined operation of a motor vehicle, in case of an accident in which the driver stops in the zone where the stopping is prohibited.

승합차가 비록 정차금지구역에 정차를 하였다 하더라도 편도 5차선 도로의 우측 가장자리에서 방향지시등을 켠 채 서서히 정차하여 승객을 하차시키는 등 정차와 관련한 주의의무를 다한 이상, 2, 3명의 승객이 하차하는 정도의 시간이 흐른 뒤 후방에서 진행하던 오토바이가 이를 뒤늦게 발견하고 추돌한 사고에 대하여는 상당인과관계가 있다고 하기 어렵다 하여 승합차의 운행자책임을 면제한 사례.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Choi Sung-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Tourism Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Dong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 51, 725, 668 won per annum from June 4, 1994 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) On June 3, 1994, the deceased non-party 1:30 on the 1994, driving a son (vehicle number omitted) and driving on the road in front of the Rose apartment apartment located in Ansan-dong 934, Anyang-si, Anyang-si, the deceased died due to the cardiopulmonary stop due to the high-speed on the part of the defendant 5ba3085, which was temporarily stopped to get off the passenger.

(2) Plaintiff 1’s wife, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3 are children of the deceased Nonparty.

(A) Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8-2, 6, 8, 9, 25, 27 through 30, 42

B. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the operator of the above passenger car, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Defendant’s assertion and facts of recognition

A. The defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the total negligence of the deceased non-party, who is the victim, and that it was not a structural defect or an obstacle to the function of the deceased non-party, so the defendant is not liable to the defendant.

B. We examine the following facts in light of the aforementioned evidence. The following facts are acknowledged.

(1) The instant passenger cars operated by the Defendant Kim Jong-soo was offered for commuting to and from work of employees of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd.) and the instant accident site where the Plaintiff was established near the instant vehicle was a 5-line straight line, which is used as a stop point in the near the instant passenger car in order to let the employees living in the vicinity, and is used as a stop point in the near the instant passenger car in order to let the employees living in the vicinity.

(2) 이 사건 사고일에도 위 김강준은 퇴근하는 삼성전자 직원들을 태우고 위 승합차를 운행하다가 이 사건 사고 지점에서 도로 5차선 우측 가장자리 쪽으로 서서히 정차하여 오른쪽 방향지시등을 켠 채 승객을 하차시키고 있었으며, 이 사건 사고는 위 승합차를 정차한 후 2, 3명의 승객이 하차하는 정도의 시간이 흐른 뒤 발생한 것으로, 위 승합차 뒤에서 오토바이를 타고 진행하던 위 망 소외인은 위 승합차 후방 약 5. 8m 지점의 인도 경계석을 충격하면서 인도로 떨어지고 오토바이는 폭 약 60cm되는 위 승합차와 인도경계석 사이로 계속 진행하여 이미 열려 있는 위 승합차의 출입문을 충격하고 멈추었다.

(3) The foregoing combined vehicles are operated normally and have no structural defect or malfunction.

3. Determination

According to the above facts, the accident of this case is caused by the total negligence of the deceased non-party who operated Oralba without neglecting the duty of Jeonju, and the accident of this case is also caused by the total negligence of the deceased non-party, and the defendant's liability shall be exempted because there is no structural defect or impairment of the function of the above Madern-type vehicle.

Although the plaintiffs asserted that the above Kim Jong-do was negligent in stopping in the stopping prohibition area, as long as they fulfilled their duty of care related to stopping, it is difficult to conclude that the location of the accident of this case is the stop prohibition area in light of the circumstances of the accident of this case, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case premised on the defendant's liability for damages is dismissed as it is without any reason to examine the scope of liability for damages.

Judges Yan-gu (Presiding Judge)