(a) Where the road along which a median line is installed exceeds the duty of care of the driver of a motor vehicle and the speed limit thereof;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it was negligent in neglecting the duty to examine the distance of two vehicles and the distance in progress after the median line of the central line, and on the ground that it was necessary to determine whether it could prevent the occurrence of the accident if the other party's Otoba found the median line.

A. A motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a median line along his/her own bus line is ordinarily reliance on the operation of the horse. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, barring special circumstances, the other motor vehicle cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle by putting the median line into the center line up to the case of the other motor vehicle. In addition, the other motor vehicle driver cannot be deemed to have been negligent solely on the ground that he/she driven the motor vehicle beyond the speed limit. However, if he/she was not a continuous operation, it can be deemed to have been negligent only in the event that there was a circumstance that he/she could avoid a collision immediately after discovering the center line of the other motor vehicle.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that, upon finding the other party's central course of the Otoba, the driver did not neglect the duty to prevent the occurrence of the accident even though he could have been able to fully prevent the occurrence of the accident if she had driven by maintaining the speed limit after examining whether the two vehicles had long been set at the center of Otoba and whether the two vehicles had been set at the center of Otoba, and whether the two vehicles had been set at the center of Otoba

A.B. Article 750 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 183 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Meu2441 Decided June 26, 1990 (Gong1990,1575). Supreme Court Decision 88Meu9203 Decided March 14, 1989 (Gong1989,604) decided March 27, 1990 (Gong1990,951) 91Da9169 Decided August 9, 1991 (Gong1991,2319) (Gong195). Supreme Court Decision 89Do2547 Decided April 24, 1990 (Gong190,1195).

Plaintiff 1 and one other

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na32710 delivered on October 17, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court of first instance acknowledged that the non-party 1, a driver of a direct bus (vehicle registration number omitted), was killed and damaged by shocking the upper part of the deceased non-party 2, who gets left left at the center of the 221st head of the Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and the right to turn to the left at the speed of the 3rd line, following the second line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line, which combine the water source and the inside of the 40 km road of the defendant's (vehicle registration number omitted), and rejected the defendant's exemption defense of this case by thoroughly recognizing the non-party 1's exemption ground of this case, even though the non-party 1 was found at the speed of 60 km of the upper part's median line at the speed of 30-40 meters, and by thoroughly recognizing and stopping the above 40 meters of the accident.

2. A driver of a motor vehicle who operates a road with a median line along his/her own bus line is generally reliance on the operation of the motor vehicle, and thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle of the other party, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to pay a duty of care to expect the other motor vehicle to commit an invasion upon the central line, and as in the instant case, it cannot be caused by his/her negligence solely on the ground that the defendant bus driver driven a bus at a speed exceeding the restricted speed. However, if the other motor vehicle was not a continuous operation, it shall be deemed that the speed operation was negligent only in the event that there was a circumstance that the other motor vehicle driver could avoid a collision with the other motor vehicle immediately stopping or speeded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu2441, Jun. 26, 1990).

However, according to the confirmation of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the point of the accident in this case is 60 km and the defendant bus drivers found the center be 30-40 km of the other Obba, and it was 6,7 (each traffic accident report) which the court of first instance adopted at the court of first instance, and it was dried at the time of the road being packed in asphalt, and the fact that the road was dried at the time, not the center line of the non-party deceased's Obaba, but the center line over 90 km and the center line over the center line and proceeded with the defendant bus with a considerable distance of rhythm until the collision with the defendant bus. Thus, even if non-party 1 driven the above bus at 60 km speed, it was obvious that the two vehicles conflict with the other 1 second son's order, and even if there was no time to take the above preventive measure, it was no time for the non-party 1 to avoid the accident.

3. In addition, the fact-finding in the first instance court, which found that the distance of two vehicles when Nonparty 1 appeared to have been 30-40 meters at the center line of the other stoba, goes against Li also. This is because according to the evidence No. 8-7 above, the distance from the point where the skiing mark of the Defendant bus was started to the center line of the other stoba, appears to be at least 40 meters recognized by the lower court, and the above non-party 1 should have discovered the median line of the Obaba prior to the creation of the skiing mark of the Defendant bus (which means that there is a "stove distance").

Therefore, the lower court did not recognize that Nonparty 1 was negligent solely on the ground that Nonparty 1 had driven the bus in excess of speed, but it did not recognize that he had been negligent, and the distance of two vehicles when he found the central course of the Otoba (which is calculated up to the “public distance” of the Defendant bus) was long, and determined by examining whether the above Otoba carried the central line, and how much the distance was reached, and then, even though it was necessary to determine whether he could sufficiently prevent the occurrence of the instant accident if he had driven the bus in compliance with the speed limit, the lower court neglected this and dismissed the Defendant’s defense of exemption, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the argument is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)