2015Da20120 (Consolidation) Claims

2

3

4

5

Judgment

1. Generally, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a median line along his/her own median line is trusting the operation of the motor vehicle. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle driver is not obliged to pay a duty of care to anticipate the accident of the other motor vehicle upon entering the median line. In such cases, even if the above motor vehicle driver has driven a motor vehicle beyond the speed limit, it cannot be caused by his/her negligence on the sole ground of such circumstance. However, if there was a circumstance that the vehicle driver could avoid a collision immediately after discovering the other motor vehicle's median line if he/she had not driven the motor vehicle under speed, it can be deemed that the speed operation was negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da67464, Feb. 9, 2001; 2006Da3295, May 10, 2007).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that: (a) it is difficult to find that the network F was in a special situation that could predict the center line of the deceased G when the accident occurred, i.e., clear and surface conditions at the time of the accident, and there seems to have been no hindrance to securing the view; (b) the edge of the road where the accident occurred is adjacent to farmland, and even if the network F was discovered in advance on the part of the defendant, it would have been difficult to drive or replace the course to the side without any serious damage; and (c) it is difficult to find that the network F was in a situation that could have anticipated the collision of the Plaintiff’s side part while leaving the left immediately before the accident in this case; and (d) it is difficult to find that the network F was in a special situation that could have caused the collision solely due to the negligence on the ground that the network F driven driven immediately after discovering the center line of the OF, if the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone did not require continuous operation, etc.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence adopted by the court below, the accident of this case occurred, according to the speed of 60 km above 2 km a speed of 116.2 km at a speed of speed exceeding 116.2 km a speed of 10 km a speed, which is limited by the network F. The middle part of the right side side of the defendant Ortoba, who operated the left turn over the center line on the opposite side of the plaintiff, and the left turn on the right side of the opposite side of the plaintiff, and due to the shock, about 42.5 meters away from the accident site where the plaintiff Ortoba is located on the side of the plaintiff, and about 46.8 meters away from the defendant Ortoba, which was left at the time of the accident, and about 1.87 meters from the road on the side of the defendant who was at the time of the accident, and about 3.1 meters from the road on the opposite side of the road on which the plaintiff Ortobabababa was operating the above farmland.

In full view of the above circumstances and surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident, since all of the vehicle involved in the accident in this case was small in size and relatively easy to enjoy a view compared to the ordinary car volume, there is room to avoid the collision with the Defendant by operating the brake and steering gear immediately after the network F was operated by observing the restricted speed without neglecting the duty of booming. Furthermore, even if the collision itself could not avoid the collision itself, at least in the speed of 116 2 km at a speed, it would have been possible to avoid an accident in the form of shocking the middle right side of the Defendant Ortoba in the speed of 116 km, and it would have sufficiently enough for the accident victim, who had worn the safety mother at the time, to have failed to reach the death (the lower court, on the other hand, should have determined that the Defendant Ortoba had failed to perform the duty of brea immediately before the accident in this case, and therefore, did not have any further sufficient evidence to acknowledge the possibility of the collision with the Defendant Ortoba, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant accident and the occurrence and expansion of damages therefrom were due to the gross negligence of the network G by failing to exhaust all such deliberation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the driver’s negligence in the central intrusion incident and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Kwon Soon-il