In case where the chief of a police station imposes a fine for negligence on an employer under Article 52 (1) of the Road Traffic Act pursuant to Article 115-2 (3) of the same Act, whether a driver of the vehicle concerned may raise an objection against the disposition of fine for negligence (negative)

In light of the provisions of Article 115-2 (3) and (7) of the Road Traffic Act, a person who may raise an objection against the disposition of a fine for negligence by the chief of a police station shall be subject to the disposition of a fine for negligence by an employer under Article 52 (1) of the same Act, and the filing of an objection by a driver shall be unlawful unless there are special circumstances, such as where the driver of the vehicle concerned was subject to the disposition of a fine for negligence,

Articles 12(3), 52(1), and 115-2(3) and (7) of the Road Traffic Act

Appellant

Changwon District Court Order 2003No5 dated March 14, 2003

The order of the court below is revoked.

The appellant shall dismiss the objection of the appellant.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts can be recognized:

A. On September 3, 2002, when the vehicle (vehicle registration number omitted) belonging to Dong Chang-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Dong Chang-dong") 19:9:26 on September 3, 2002, when the vehicle was scambling the central line on the road located in Yongsan-dong, Daegu-gu, 268-3, but was photographed and accused of it, the chief of the police station imposed a fine for negligence of KRW 90,00 under Article 115-2(3) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the violation of Article 12(3) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Road Act").

B. On January 15, 2003, the appellant (to be appointed as the driver of the above vehicle) failed to raise an objection on the ground that the above disposition of the fine for negligence is improper, and the Changwon District Court (Seoul District Court) decided to impose a fine for negligence of KRW 90,00 in accordance with the summary procedure. On March 14, 2003, the appellant filed an objection against the above decision and again decided to impose a fine for negligence of KRW 90,00 in accordance with the summary procedure, but the appellant filed an appeal of this case again with the court.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the objection

Article 115-2 (3) of the Act provides that "a person who is dissatisfied with the disposition of a fine for negligence under the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of Article 115-2 shall be punished by a fine for negligence not exceeding 20,000 won against the employer, etc. under the provisions of Article 52 (1) in the event that the fact of violation of the provisions of Article 12 (3) is proved by any photograph, video tape, or visual recording medium." In the event that it is impossible to identify the driver who has committed the act of violation, the notification cannot be made under the provisions of Article 118 (3) (limited to the case where Article 12 (3) is violated)." Paragraph (7) of the same Article provides that "a person who is dissatisfied with the disposition of a fine for negligence may raise an objection to the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency or the head of the Si, etc. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notification of the disposition." Since the above provision provides that the appellant has received the order of a fine for negligence and his representative within 5 days from the complaint.

Nevertheless, since the original court imposed a fine for negligence on the appellant, it has corrected it and cancelled the order of the original court, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the objection of this case.

Judges Yellow Mung-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)