The case holding that the Track owner's liability for damages is recognized with respect to an accident in which Trackers parked without installing dangerous signs, tail lights, etc. on the first line road at night.

The case holding that the Track owner's liability for damages is recognized with respect to an accident in which Trackers parked without installing dangerous signs, tail lights, etc. on the first line road at night.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 30 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 10 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da665 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1482), Supreme Court Decision 91Da5341 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1635), Supreme Court Decision 91Da14291 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2132), Supreme Court Decision 95Da39359 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 917), Supreme Court Decision 96Da716 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1530), Supreme Court Decision 9Do20307 delivered on December 20, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1530)

Jindo and four others (Attorneys Kim Jung-gi et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 96Na4191 delivered on January 22, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. The court below held on August 10, 1995 that the defendant left the 1st 09:30 square meters away from the cater and cut off the cater by using the cater, and that the left side of the insertion attached to the cater from the center line is 1.9m, that the left side of the cater is 1.85m, the left side wheeler is 1.7m, the left side wheeler is 1.7m, the left side wheeler is 1.5m away from the cater, and the cater installed after the cater is not installed at the 1.1m away from the cater, and that the cater is not installed at the time of the night, and that the cater is not constructed at the speed of 1.1m away from the cater, but the cater is not installed at the time of the day of the night, and the cater is not constructed at the speed of 20.1m.

2. Article 30 of the Road Traffic Act provides that matters necessary for the method and time limitation of stopping or parking of all vehicles on the road, or prohibition of stopping or parking on an on-road parking lot shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 10(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act that receives such restriction shall not interfere with other traffic when it is intended to park. However, this provision shall not apply when it is inevitable to park due to breakdown: Provided, That the space where the defendant's Twitter occupies the roadway, which is 1.5 meters long and may interfere with other traffic, it is obvious that the defendant left the Track on the road and caused interference with traffic (the defendant is found to have been parked on the road at the night on 09:30 on the day of the accident, and it is difficult for the defendant to easily find that the Track motor vehicle was parked and loaded through the Track at night, and it is difficult to say that it is difficult to say that it is a road without the duty of care to take safety measures on the road due to the accident.

In the same purport, it is reasonable that the court below recognized the defendant's liability for damages, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or causation in tort due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theories.

In addition, in light of the above defendant's negligence, the deceased's negligence is not limited to the extent to which the defendant's liability for damages is exempted, but there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on comparative negligence in the judgment of the court below which deemed the ratio to 85%. There is no reason to

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)