On September 14, 2018, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 00:27, and driven the front road of Ulsan Nam-gu C along the salary range from the intersection of the parallel of the sports center to the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the two-lanes.

In this case, the driver had a duty of care to prevent various accidents by properly operating the steering and steering system well, and by operating the steering and steering system accurately.

Nevertheless, by negligence, the Defendant neglected the duty of her on the front side of the vehicle driving, caused the victim D (the 54 years old) who illegally crossed the road on the crosswalk signal from the left side of the vehicle driving direction to go beyond the road by shocking the front end of the rash her driver, thereby resulting in the victim’s injury, such as labage, closed ladrop, ladroping, ladroping, and ladropic laging, etc., which require treatment of approximately 6 months or more, thereby causing danger to life or causing an incurable or incurable disease.

Judgment

The so-called “the principle of trust” under which a driver who operates a road is not liable for breach of duty of care to the driver as long as he/she has trusted that the driver would comply with all traffic regulations and operated the road on the basis of such trust is not liable for the driver’s breach of duty of care to the driver (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4134, Oct. 11, 2002) is excluded in a case where there are special circumstances that make it difficult for the other party traffic controller to believe that he/she will drive or walk on the road in compliance with all traffic regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4134, Oct. 11, 2002). Based on the above legal doctrine, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court