1. The judgment of the court below

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s fault ratio and D’s fault ratio on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was negligent in avoiding the instant accident or not preventing the expansion of damage while trying to turn to the left at a speed exceeding the restricted speed, while the instant accident occurred due to occupational negligence, which was committed by the Plaintiff following the instant Oba, operated by the Plaintiff; (b) but (c) the Plaintiff was negligent in attempting to turn to the left at a speed exceeding the restricted speed.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of negligence by the parties involved in tort should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, even if it is a fact-finding authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da37530, Jul. 24, 2008). Meanwhile, in cases where a traffic accident is committed in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act, in which the central line was invaded, the traffic accident is on roads.

In a case where an act of running a road by breaking an Angra-ray is caused by the act of driving the road, i.e., the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident. Thus, if an act of intrusion by the central line is not the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident, it is not included in this act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5010, Sept. 15, 2005). According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff tried to turn to the left over the center line of the yellow-ray line to enter the village where the road of this case was driven by the vehicle of this case, while driving the road of this case, the plaintiff tried to turn to the left at the center line of the yellow-ray line in order to turn to the village way going to the left from the direction of the proceeding of the plaintiff at the time of the Maman-ba, and tried to overtake the vehicle of this case beyond the center line of the yellow-ray line in violation of the speed limit.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant accident is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff attempted to turn to the left, thereby preventing the course of the vehicle behind the same direction, which directly caused the Plaintiff’s fault, and thus, the central crime committed at the center is difficult to be considered as a direct cause. Thus, the Plaintiff’s illegal meeting is not considered as a ground for offsetting negligence, but it is inappropriate to consider the Plaintiff’s fault itself as the cause of the occurrence of damages caused by the instant accident and the comparative negligence of expanding the scope thereof.

D. Nevertheless, solely based on its reasoning, the lower court’s judgment that limits the scope of the Defendant’s liability to the Plaintiff to 50% on the ground that the Defendant was negligent in the course of the vessel’s intrusion, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to accidents in the Central Line and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han