Blocked Lane in Namsan 3rd Tunnel for a Single Photo? Engaged Couple Caught Taking Wedding Pictures in Tunnel

Traffic Cone Set Up and Car Stopped in Tunnel
Online Users Say, "I Thought There Was an Accident"
Some Raise Possibility of Legal Violations

Controversy has arisen after a couple, presumed to be engaged, was spotted blocking one lane inside the Namsan 3rd Tunnel in Seoul to take wedding photos as vehicles continued to travel through the tunnel. On August 31, photos showing a couple posing for wedding pictures inside the Namsan 3rd Tunnel rapidly spread across social networking services (SNS) and social media platforms.

The original poster, identified as Mr. A, who first released the photo, stated, "On the morning of August 25, I spotted an engaged couple taking wedding photos in the tunnel while blocking one of the lanes," recounting the situation at the time. In the photo, a white car can be seen stopped in one of the two lanes that make up the tunnel. Behind the vehicle, a traffic cone is set up, apparently to prevent other vehicles from approaching or to prompt drivers to change lanes.

The author A, who first revealed the photo, said, "On the morning of August 25, we spotted a couple preparing for a wedding shoot blocking one lane of the Namsan 3rd Tunnel," recounting the situation at the time. Screenshot from SNS

Near the tunnel’s right wall, a woman wearing a white wedding dress stands alongside a man in a black suit. The circumstances suggest that they were in the midst of a wedding photo shoot. Mr. A said, "At first, I thought there had been an accident because of the traffic cone. As it turns out, they had stopped the car and were taking photos."

After the photo was released, online users were quick to voice criticism, fearing potential safety incidents. In particular, many pointed out that blocking a lane in a tunnel—where vehicles tend to travel at high speeds and visibility can be limited—just for a personal photo shoot could have resulted in a major accident. Comments included, "Drivers could abruptly change lanes, thinking there was a breakdown or an accident," "It's hard to understand why someone would put other drivers at risk just for a wedding photo," "The sudden disappearance of a lane seems even more dangerous than a person standing there," and "Shouldn't safety take precedence over a photo?"

Some of the criticism was also directed at the company responsible for the photo shoot. A number of online users pointed out, "Even if the bride and groom requested it, a professional photography company should have refused to shoot in such a dangerous location," and "If there was a vendor organizing and photographing the scene, they should also be held responsible—not just the engaged couple." On the other hand, some took a more cautious stance, noting it was difficult to determine from just the photo whether or not an official permit for occupying the road had been obtained, saying, "We should check first if it was done with proper authorization." As of now, it is unclear whether a separate permit for road use or shooting had been obtained from the relevant authorities at the time of the shoot. If it turns out that the lane was occupied without proper authorization, there could be a violation of relevant laws.

Meanwhile, Article 61 of the Road Act stipulates that anyone wishing to occupy a road—for example, by installing structures or objects—must obtain permission from the relevant road management authority. Occupying a road without proper authorization may be subject to penalties under Article 114 of the same act. In addition, under current traffic law, parking is prohibited inside tunnels. Article 33 of the Road Traffic Act specifies "inside tunnels and on bridges" as areas where parking is strictly forbidden. Furthermore, Article 68 of the same law prohibits placing objects on roads or standing in a manner that obstructs traffic.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.