The case holding that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the tragr on the part of the driver, on the part of the driver, on the ground that the tragr and the congested traffic accident parked without using lights and sidelightss on the third line of the roadways at night are not a zone where parking or stopping is prohibited, but a lighting facility is installed.

The case holding that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the tragr on the part of the driver, on the part of the driver, on the part of the driver, on the part of the trag who parked lag without using the tail lights and the sidelights lights on the 3rd line at night, such as the prohibition area of parking or stopping, but the lighting facilities are installed.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Han-jin Law Office, Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na37312 delivered on December 13, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above parking act did not interfere with normal road traffic since the point was not prohibited from stopping, and the space occupied by the above Traler among the third lanes of the road, even though the above Traler was parked on the roadway at night, and even if the lights and the sidelightss were not used on the roadway at night, it cannot be viewed as having a relation with the occurrence of the accident, and rather, it cannot be viewed as having a relation with the occurrence of the accident, since the act of not occupying the lights is equipped with lighting facilities to the extent that there is no difficulty in distinguishing the lights and the sidelightss in parking on the roadway at night, even if the Traler was parked on the roadway of this case, and therefore, it did not have any negligence on the driver of the above Traler because the above Traler could have easily discovered the above Traler and sufficiently damaged them if the victim operated his vehicle with due care.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)