The case holding that the truck driver fulfilled his duty of care in an accident occurred after the victim's driver's automobiles were driven by using the tail lights, etc. on the road of the third lane which is possible to stop, and attaching it temporarily to delivery, without warning, etc., from the driver's license to the warning, etc.

Parking is not possible, but stopping during a locking period is 24 meters wide on the general arterial road, which is 3-lanes of the width of the road, and the truck has been placed temporarily to the edge of the third-way road and has been placed on a warning, etc. while operating the truck to check off while driving a long distance on the general arterial road, and has been placed temporarily to turn off it to the edge of the third-way road, and the driver of the said truck has performed his duty of care as a driver at the time of stopping, when the vehicle of the victim was followed by the above truck, the accident occurred, at the point where the truck was installed at the time of the accident, and there was two lanes to the left side at considerable time at the point where the above truck was installed, and there was a straight line road at night, but if there was no particular obstacle at the time, the said truck driver fulfilled his duty of care as a driver at the time of stopping.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others, Plaintiffs Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Korea Transportation Corporation (Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na43249 delivered on March 21, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while Nonparty 2 was running a 11 ton truck as indicated in the judgment of the court below, he temporarily set up the above truck on the side of the third line road, but the deceased Nonparty 1 was driving the automobile along the same 3rd line, and the accident of this case occurred by receiving the above truck. According to the evidences, according to the accident of this case, the road at the point of accident of this case can not be parked as a general main road which is 24 meters wide, but it is possible to stop for a short time, but the above truck was set up on the side of the above road to check a long distance driving. According to the above fact that Nonparty 2 had no duty of care at the point of time, it was found that the above truck was set up on the side of the third line without warning, etc., and it was found that the above truck was set up at the point of the above 2nd line with the driver's duty of care at the point of the above time, and thus, it was found that the above accident occurred.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and the judgment of liability of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In theory, the above non-party 2's act of setting up a truck constitutes parking under the Road Traffic Act, and therefore, the same person's act should be recognized as negligence in the accident of this case because he violated the regulations of the Road Traffic Act. However, the above non-party 2's act of cutting a truck on a motor vehicle as stated in its holding cannot be viewed as parking act because it constitutes a stop under the Road Traffic Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an act of parking. Therefore, the argument of the court below's attacking the same purport cannot be accepted. The arguments are

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)