The case holding that there is a proximate causal relation between the illegal parking of the above dump truck driver and the above traffic accident in case where a person who has driven a small truck at night dump truck driver caused an injury by shocking the victim who has been found to have been illegally parked on the road of the dump truck on the one-lane road.

In a case where a person who has driven a small truck at night passed a dump truck that was illegally parked in a reverse direction at the right edge while the tail lights or sidelights, etc. were cut off on the road of one lane on the way and inflicted an injury upon the victim who was sump truck to cross the road after a dump truck, the case holding that there is a proximate causal relationship between the illegal parking of the driver of the above dump truck and the above traffic accident.

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

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jong-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2004Na3849 decided Nov. 4, 2004

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. Facts acknowledged by the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as a whole, the non-party 1 was the owner of the above 5-day lap truck (vehicle registration number 1 omitted), which was installed at the above 2-day lap truck from 000 to 2001, and the defendant 1 was the owner of the above 4-day lap truck at the 2-day lap truck from 000 to 3-day 2-day lap truck, which was installed at the above 5-day lap truck from 100, and the defendant 2 was the owner of the above 1-day lap truck at the 2-day lap truck from 2000 to 9-day lap truck at the right-hand side of the above 1-day lap truck, and the defendant 1 was the owner of the above lap truck at the right-hand side of the 2-day lap truck from 2000 to 9-day lap truck.

B. The plaintiff's assertion and the judgment of the court below

The plaintiff argued that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the defendant 1 who illegally parked the dump truck of this case in the above non-party 1's negligence and the parking prohibition zone, which caused the obstruction to traffic and camping. Thus, the defendant 1 and the defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., who is in the status of the insurer, are liable to pay the amount equivalent to the ratio of liability of the defendant 1, out of the damages paid by each plaintiff.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the above non-party 1 and the situation of road, and that the accident of this case was caused by the conflict between the non-party 2, who was the victim himself and the non-party 2, who did not park on the right side of the proceeding direction, and even if the dump truck of this case was operated normally in the proceeding direction because it was not parked, it does not seem that the non-party 2, who was the victim 8 years old at the time of the accident of this case, did not park the dump truck of this case at the time of the accident of this case, could reduce the possibility of the accident by itself. Accordingly, the accident of this case was not caused by the negligence of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1, who neglected the duty of the dump truck of this case, and did not recognize the proximate causal relation between the illegal parking act of this case and the accident.

2. The judgment of this Court

The above judgment of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

As acknowledged by the court below, the location of the accident in this case was not only a parking zone but also at night, even at the time of the accident, Defendant 1 illegally parked the instant dump truck at the location of the accident without using tail lights or sidelightss. The width of the road at the location of the accident in this case is about 3.5m, and the size of the instant dump truck is about 2.49m high, 3.075m high, and 8.549m high. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the above dump truck in this case was illegally parked, the above non-party 1 was in a situation where it was impossible to grasp the movement of pedestrians at the right side of the direction of the accident, and it is impossible to grasp the situation of the road operation at the location of the road in this case, and there is no proximate causal relation between the victim and the non-party 2, as seen above, due to the negligence of the accident in this case, barring special circumstances.

In other words, if the above dump truck was not parked as above at the location of the accident in this case, the above non-party 1 was able to normally drive along the opposite lane without any need to verify the situation of the vehicle driving, and to secure the view of the right side of the direction, and the victim non-party 2 was able to detect the above non-party 2 before commencing the road crossing and drive the road crossing in preparation for the road crossing. The above non-party 2 seems to have been able to ascertain the situation of the vehicle driving of the road in this case and determine whether or not crossing the road in this case. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it is deemed that the dump truck in this case parked on the road in this case by the defendant 1 itself constitutes negligence that caused the accident in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that there is no proximate causal relation between Defendant 1’s illegal parking act and the accident of this case solely based on its stated reasoning. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence or proximate causal relation in tort. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)