[구상금][공1991.7.15.(900),1759]
The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the bus, which was in progress at a speed of 80 to 90km per hour with the fourth line among the fourth lines, attempted to overtake a motor vehicle that is in progress at a speed of 50 km per hour with the third line, and entered the third line with the third line close to it, and caused the latter part of the said motor vehicle, was erroneous in finding the fact that the judgment of the value of the evidence was reversed, or contradictory to the reasons for its explanation.
The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the bus, which was in progress at a speed of 80 to 90km per hour with the fourth line among the fourth lines, attempted to overtake a motor vehicle that is in progress at a speed of 50 km per hour with the third line, and entered the third line with the third line close to it, and caused the latter part of the said motor vehicle, was erroneous in finding the fact that the judgment of the value of the evidence was reversed, or contradictory to the reasons for its explanation.
Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 187 and 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the National Bus Transport Association
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na31802 delivered on January 18, 1991
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the circumstances of the accident of this case, Defendant 2 operated a passenger car owned by Defendant 1 at a speed of about 50 km from the long-speed to the long-speed side of the bus at the speed of about 40 km depending on the third-speed line among the fourth lines of the bus in the long-speed side. However, the non-party, who is the driver of the urban bus belonging to the Ganyang Traffic Co., Ltd., was in competition with the bus No. 129 when the bus was in progress along the second line in the same direction, and tried to secure the above bus at a speed of more than 60 km speed above 80 km at a speed of more than 90 km at a speed of 30 km, and continued to pass the above vehicle to the right side of the above vehicle, and tried to pass the vehicle to the right side of the above vehicle to the right side of the front-speed side of the above vehicle, and tried to pass the vehicle again by the front side.
2. 그러나 위 원심인정사실에 의하면 4차선에서 진행중이던 위 버스가 3차선에서 진행중이던 위 승용차를 추월하려고 그 뒤에서 3차선으로 진입하려다가 위 승용차의 뒷부분을 충격한 셈이 되는 바(피고가 이 사건 사고현장 도면이라 하여 제출한 을 제4호증의 기재내용도 이와 부합된다), 위와 같은 경우에 위 버스가 옆차선의 위 승용차를 추월하여 그 차선으로 진입하려고 하였다면 위 승용차를 앞질러서 진입을 시도하는 것이 마땅한데도 위 승용차의 뒤에서 진입하려다가 그 뒷부분을 충격하였다는 것은 도무지 이치에 닿지 않으며, 또 원심인정에 의하더라도 위 버스의 속력은 시속 80 내지 90km로서 시속 50km로 운행 중이던 위 승용차의 속력보다 휠씬 빨랐으므로 위 버스가 위 승용차를 앞질러서 진입하려고 하던 중에 위 승용차가 더 빨리 앞질러와서 위 승용차의 뒷부분을 충격케 된 것이라고 보기도 어렵다.
Ultimately, the above judgment of the court below is justified since it is erroneous for the court below to judge the value of evidence or it cannot be maintained significantly due to contradictions in the reasoning of its explanation.
3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)