Where a driver of a motor vehicle stops the motor vehicle in violation of subparagraph 6 of Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act and the non-party causes a traffic accident while driving the motor vehicle, he/she shall be liable to compensate the driver

In the event the Defendant, the driver of a motor vehicle, sets the engine keys by putting the vehicle string, leaving the door of the motor vehicle in the vicinity of the motor vehicle without locking it, and causing a vehicle accident, the Defendant cannot be exempted from liability of neglect of duty of care for the management of the motor vehicle, and thus, the victim of the foregoing accident is liable to compensate for damage under the Civil Act.

Article 44 subparagraph 6 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da407 Delivered on June 10, 1975

Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-ho-ho

Long-term

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2675 delivered on December 26, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the facts established by the court below, the vehicle is likely to cause danger and injury to others when it is driven by a person who has no driving technology or has yet to know, so Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act provides that one of the matters to be observed by a driver shall maintain a stop condition, such as stopping the engine, completely operating the brake system, etc., and take necessary measures to prevent others from driving the vehicle without permission. Thus, the driver of the vehicle shall have a duty of care to take necessary measures, such as stopping the engine when leaving the vehicle, collecting the starting heat so that others can not drive the vehicle without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da407 delivered on June 10, 1975). The defendant is just in the judgment of the court below because the defendant cannot avoid liability for driving the vehicle at the front of the 2nd-dong office in Sungnam by driving the vehicle with the accident, and the defendant cannot avoid liability for driving the vehicle near the vehicle without any other driver's duty of care.

Since the judgment of the court below clearly stated that it is not clear that the liability for damages under the Civil Act was ordered due to the neglect of automobile management obligation, and that the liability for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act was not determined, the theory of criticism against the judgment of the court below cannot be too serious.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)