208 Fixed 2443 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accidents Settlement

80(83) in office.

Housing Daegu Northern-gu

Gyeongbuk-gu District in Reference domicile

Pluorri

Attorney Park Jong-han (Korean National Assembly)

November 21, 2008

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

At around 18:30 on May 3, 2008, the Defendant: (a) driven the car of the Pacifician No. 28 of Daegu 28 weeks, driving the car, and (b) had the said B receive approximately 20-40 km from the surface of the Gyeongcheon Elementary School to the speed of speed of about 20-40 km from the surface of the Gyeongcheon Elementary School near the Gyeongcheonbuk-gu, Seoul; (c) caused the collision between A (n, 32 years of age) and B (4 years of age) walking along the left-hand side of the said car; (d) caused the tension between the victim A (n, 32 years of age) and the victim (h) walking along the upper-hand side of the said car to undergo approximately 3 weeks medical treatment; and (e) caused the tension between the above A and the victim C2 years of age in need of medical treatment for about 2 weeks.

2. Determination

A. The meaning of "central line intrusion" under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

(1) The term "when a driver intrudes the median line of a road on which a lane has been installed in violation of Article 13 (3) of the "Road Traffic Act" under the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the "Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" refers not to all cases beyond the median line, but to cases where a traffic accident has occurred due to the course of a traffic accident without any inevitable reason. The term "inevitable reason" refers to cases where there are objective circumstances, such as where a driver does not take other appropriate measures to avoid obstacles on the lane, or where a driver does so inevitably due to external conditions that do not control, but rather, he cannot criticize the driver themselves (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Do2010, May 23, 198; 95Do1239, May 23, 197; 196Do1969, Apr. 196, 196).

(2) On the other hand, in the case of the median line, the median line, in which the objective condition at the time of operation is required to damage the obstacles due to the nature of the median line, and thus beyond the median line, the traffic in the opposite direction constitutes a motor vehicle line pursuant to Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act. However, it constitutes a case where the traffic in the opposite direction without any necessity of such a straight line and without giving attention to the traffic in the opposite direction constitutes a case where the traffic in the middle line of the road where the lane is installed, in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2597, Jul. 7, 1987).

(3) However, the above legal principle applies to cases where drivers of vehicles and horses are obliged to pass along the right side from the center line under Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act in principle, such as cases where drivers of vehicles and horses temporarily overtake a vehicle in transit or avoid an obstacle on their own, and in cases where traffic in the opposite direction is unnecessary or it is impossible to pass through the right side due to destruction of the road, road construction, other obstacles, etc., or where the width of the right side side of the road is insufficient for the passage of vehicles and horses, such as in cases where the function of the center line is not temporarily extinguished or cannot be expected temporarily, and in exceptional cases where drivers of vehicles and horses are able to pass through the center or the left side of the road (see, e.g., Article 13(4)1, 2, and 4 of the Road Traffic Act) and in cases where occupational negligence is recognized due to the violation of the duty of safety prior to the passage, it is interpreted that the center line does not fall under the case where the center line is installed in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Act.

B. In the case of multiple vehicles parked for a long time so that they cannot pass along the left side of the road, whether they fall under the median line even if they are forced to pass along the upper part of the road (negative). In the case of this case, the traffic accident investigation report, the victim's statement statement, the police protocol of the victim A, the protocol of statement of the defendant and the protocol of examination of the suspect suspect about the defendant, and photographs and videos that were opened on the pleadings of this case, the accident of this case can not be seen as falling under the upper part of the road of the 70 to 10 meters since the vehicle was parked on the right side of the road of this case (the road that cannot pass along the upper part of the 3rd road without exceeding the central line) in accordance with the first section of the 3rd road traffic road, and the road traffic accident of this case does not fall under the upper part of the 3rd road or the upper part of the 1st road, and it cannot be seen as falling under the upper part of the 3rd road parking zone.

(c) Dismissal of prosecution;

On the other hand, according to the Automobile Insurance Certification Board bound in the record, the instant vehicle is recognized as having been covered by a comprehensive insurance. Thus, the instant accident cannot be prosecuted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Thus, the instant public prosecution constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of law, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judges Kim Gin-jin