Whether a place where a pedestrian signal apparatus for crossing pedestrians is placed only in the state of temporary breakdown falls under the "road crossing" stipulated in the proviso to Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (affirmative)

(a)In a case where crossing pedestrian signal is installed on a crosswalk installed by the Do governor, if the crossing sign is not installed, it shall be deemed that the crossing sign is installed in conformity with the installation standards of the crosswalk as stipulated in Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and even if the crossing pedestrian signal apparatus is broken and that the signal light is not on and off from one day due to a malfunction, the crosswalk shall be deemed to be the crosswalk as stipulated in Article 3(2) proviso 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Article 3 (2) (proviso)6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 2, Article 10 (1), and Article 48 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Defendant

Defense Family Heading Kim Tae-hee

Busan District Court Decision 89No1263 delivered on July 21, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

Article 3 (2) (proviso) (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians at the crosswalks under Article 48 (3) of the Road Traffic Act" shall be "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks under Article 48 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, and according to subparagraph 3 of Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act,

In addition, Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for the definition of the terms used in the Road Traffic Act, the term "road crossing" means the part of the road, which is marked with safety signs so that pedestrians can cross the road, and Article 12 of the same Act provides that the term "safety signs" means the signs, regulations, instructions, etc., or signs, letters, or lines, etc. indicated on the surface of the road, which are necessary for the safety of traffic, and Article 10 (1) of the same Act provides that the Mayor/Do governor may install the crosswalk for the safety of pedestrians crossing the road. According to Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Act, which provides for the standards for the installation of the crosswalk, Article 10 (1) of the Act provides that when the Mayor/Do governor intends to install the crosswalk pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 (1) of the Act, the crosswalk shall be installed and the crosswalk shall be installed (Article 10 (1) 1).

Therefore, as in the case of this case, in the case where crossing pedestrian signal is installed on the crosswalk installed by the Mayor/Do governor, even if the crosswalk sign is not installed, it shall be deemed that the crosswalk sign is installed in conformity with the standards for installing the crosswalk as stipulated under Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and even if the crossing pedestrian signal is in a state of not on-and-off, it shall be deemed that the crosswalk is in a state of not on-off and-off as a day, even though the signal apparatus for crossing pedestrian is broken down, it shall be deemed that the crosswalk is "a crosswalk as stipulated under Article 48 subparagraph 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" under Article 3 (2) proviso 6

The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to crosswalks as stipulated in Article 3 (2) (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, there is no reason to

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)