Whether a driver of an accident-free vehicle has the duty to take relief measures and duty to report under Article 50 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act (affirmative)

Article 50 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver, etc. shall promptly take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties caused by a traffic accident, when the driver, etc. is killed or injured or damaged by the traffic of any motor vehicle, and the police officer shall be informed of the occurrence of the traffic accident and take appropriate measures, such as rescue of the victim and recovery of traffic order. Thus, if the result of the traffic accident is in a situation where measures are needed to rescue the victim and restore traffic order, the obligation shall be interpreted as the obligation imposed on the driver of the motor vehicle who has caused the traffic accident regardless of intention, negligence or negligence, or illegality in the occurrence of the traffic accident.

Articles 50(1) and 50(2) of the Road Traffic Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Attorney Jin-tae

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 89No510 delivered on April 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below's finding that the defendant's front and rear wheels part of the bus's crime is a traffic accident causing the death of the victim and the front and rear wheels of the person, but it cannot be deemed as a violation of the rules of evidence as stated in the theory of lawsuit that the defendant did not take relief measures or report as stipulated in Article 50 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act. The purport of this duty is that the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver, etc. shall promptly take necessary measures such as aiding the casualties caused by the traffic accident when the person is killed or injured or damaged (Paragraph (1)) and the police officer shall be notified of the occurrence of the traffic accident and take appropriate measures such as rescue of the victim and restoration of the general order. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the duty is imposed on the driver of the vehicle who caused the traffic accident regardless of the existence of intention, negligence or illegal liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 203Do30, Jun. 23, 198).

However, in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the traffic accident in this case occurred in such a situation, the court below's finding the defendant to be in violation of Article 106 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 111 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act is just and there is no ground to criticize the judgment below from the opposite position

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)