[손해배상(자)][집36(3)민,26;공1988.11.15.(836),1402]
The meaning of the principle of trust in traffic accidents and the requirements for its application.
The principle of trust refers to an accident in which the responsibility of a person operating a vehicle or a driver is denied in cases where it is reasonable to believe that an abnormal behavior such as traffic offense by the victim or a third party has not been committed in light of the overall circumstances at the time when such action is commenced in the occurrence of a traffic accident. Therefore, in order to apply it, it should be reasonable to believe that the person involved in the traffic accident or the normal behavior by the third party is not committed.
Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellant
Defendant Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 86Da3986 delivered on March 26, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
The fact-finding by the court below on the process of the occurrence of the instant automobile accident shall not be deemed to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the erroneous deliberation, erroneous determination of facts, special exception of emergency motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act, and the duty to observe the traffic rules of road driving vehicles.
In addition, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the point of accident in this case is a relatively broad intersection of the fourth line (the eighth line from each other), and the defendant's surved vehicle is in depth at the time when it stops in the vicinity of the intersection, and the defendant's surved vehicle turns on the left side by crossing the first line from each other while driving in the vicinity of the intersection and sounding a siren, and seems to be an emergency motor vehicle at the speed of 60 kilometers per hour, and even if there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, such as sending the survel, first sending the surging, and starting from each other, even though there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, it is difficult to say that the judgment of the court below did not apply this case to the case where the victim or the third party's reliance in traffic accident could not be applied to the accident of this case, and thus, it can not be viewed that the defendant's reliance or behavior at the time of the accident.
All arguments are without merit, and this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)