(b) The meaning of "in case where the median line of the road on which a lane is installed" as provided in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

C. In a case where a driver of a motor vehicle finds it possible for the driver to make a left-hand turn to enter the left-hand side of the motor vehicle on the opposite side and go beyond the opposite line to the left, whether it constitutes a central course of collision under the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (affirmative)

B. Although a motor vehicle is the center line of yellow-ray that is permitted to go beyond both sides of the road, it shall be interpreted that the driver of the motor vehicle inevitably needs to go beyond the center line due to such urgent circumstances as there is no other appropriate measure to avoid obstacles in light of the objective conditions at the time when the driver intrudes the center line, and the traffic in the opposite direction does not go beyond the center line due to the scambling of the center line in opposite direction, it shall be interpreted as falling under the case of scambling the center line of the road where the lane is installed in violation of Article 13(2) proviso of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

C. If the driver of a motor vehicle moves to the opposite line in order to turn to the left place without the right-hand turn, it would be objectively deemed necessary to go beyond the median line. However, if the opposite line goes to the opposite line and go to the left-hand turn, it would go to the opposite line in order to make a left-hand turn, and if the opposite line go to the opposite line before leaving the opposite line completely, it would be difficult to recognize that the defendant went to the opposite line with the opposite line while paying due attention to the traffic in the opposite direction, barring any other special circumstances, and entered the opposite line. Thus, it cannot be said that the above traffic accident does not constitute the central crime of traffic accidents as provided in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, on the sole basis of the reason that the driver need to go to the opposite direction and could turn to the left.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "vehicles and horses shall pass along the road along which the lanes are installed, except as otherwise provided for in this Act or any order issued under this Act: Provided, That the City/Do branch offices shall pass along the road as designated, if it separately designates the method of passage, and Article 10(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Act provides that the median line shall be marked at the center of the road. The yellow domin line. The yellow domin line shall be marked with three safety signs such as the yellow do not go beyond the road and the yellow line shall not pass along the road at a place other than the opposite direction, and the yellow line shall not individually be permitted to pass beyond the median line or left-hand, and it shall not be permitted to pass beyond the median line if it is generally prohibited to pass beyond the median line, and it shall not be permitted to pass beyond the median line, and it shall not be permitted to pass beyond the median line or left-hand, and it shall not be permitted to pass beyond the median line.

Therefore, even if the center line is marked with a yellow line, if the center line is marked with a yellow line, it shall be deemed possible to turn to the left as long as it is not a place where change of course, such as a yellow line, in particular, as seen above. As such, the court below is just in holding that the place where the traffic accident in this case occurred is a general road marked with the center line as a yellow domin line, and there is no prohibition of left turn to the left at the left, and therefore, it is permitted for the defendant to turn to the left on the left of the road in which the center line is proceeding, and the argument that the left turn to the left is prohibited in the premise that the left turn to the left is not accepted, even if the center line is marked with a yellow domin line, unless there is a road sign that permits a left turn to the left.

2. The reason for excluding the application of the main sentence of Article 13(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is that the act of going beyond the median line of the road where the driver of the vehicle is installed and entering the opposite lane is not only an act of harming the driver's trust of the opposite lane, but also an act of seriously impairing the driver's reliance on the opposite lane. Thus, even if the driver of the vehicle is permitted to go beyond both sides of the road, it is necessary to take other appropriate measures to avoid obstacles in light of objective circumstances at the time when the driver of the vehicle gets on both sides of the road, and it is not a case where the driver of the vehicle is obliged to go beyond the median line of the road in violation of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 29(2)5 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is also a case where the driver of the vehicle goes beyond the median line of the median line of the road in violation of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act. 97.25.

[Reference]

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant found the victim's getting on and out of the 50 meters prior to the point of the accident of this case and tried to turn to the left and brought to the left, but did not turn to the left, and caused the accident of this case. According to the above facts, the defendant paid attention to the traffic of the opposite direction in a situation where it is objectively necessary to go to the central line, but caused the accident of this case. Thus, the court below determined that this does not constitute "in the case where the defendant gets off the central line" as provided in the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Act.

However, as recognized by the court below, if the defendant entered the opposite line to the left where the left is not prohibited, it would be objectively deemed that there was a need to go beyond the median line. However, if the opposite line runs beyond the opposite line to the left, and the opposite line go beyond the opposite line for left-hand turn, it would be difficult to recognize that the defendant did not go beyond the opposite line with the opposite line while paying due attention to traffic in the opposite direction, unless there are other special circumstances. This is because the driver of the motor vehicle goes beyond the median line and moves beyond the opposite line, and it would be sufficiently possible for the driver to report the opposite line and turn to the left-hand, and if it comes to the opposite line, it would be difficult to recognize that the driver of the motor vehicle go beyond the opposite line to the opposite line to the contrary, the purpose of Article 3 (2) 2 (former part) of the Special Cases concerning Traffic Accidents is to prevent the traffic accident from being infringed and the driver of the opposite line would not be able to go beyond the Central Election Traffic Accident.

Nevertheless, the court below did not make any deliberation as to whether the defendant had paid sufficient attention to traffic in the opposite direction in the course of the traffic accident at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, or if the traffic accident occurred even though he had paid sufficient attention to the traffic in the opposite direction, or if there was any special circumstance, it did not make any determination as to whether there was such special circumstance. However, the court below held that the traffic accident in this case does not constitute a central crime under the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Traffic Accidents only on the ground that the defendant was in need of beyond the central line at the time and could sufficiently turn to the left, and the traffic in the opposite direction could sufficiently turn to the left. Thus, the court below did not properly examine the traffic accident in this case, nor did there were any errors of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the central crime under the above provision of the Act, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)