(a) The method of asserting innocence under the proviso to Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act;

(b) A driver's duty of care as an operator during driving;

A. In the final appeal case of the judgment of the court of final appeal, only the assertion that the judgment of the court of final appeal is not guilty, and the case does not fall under the proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, unless there exists

B. “A” vehicle entered the bridge at a considerable interval of time, and the other party “B” vehicle turned to the right-hand side of the road, which is one of its own lanes, and the right-hand side becomes narrow to the left side, and the right-hand side is narrow, the right-hand side is narrow, and it is impossible to stop rapidly due to the water-driven speed, and it is difficult to stop on the left-hand side, so it is shocked by 45 degrees to the “A” vehicle, so it is difficult to expect the “A” vehicle to have the duty of care to anticipate that the “B” vehicle would go above, and it cannot be said that the “B” vehicle will drive safely with the “B” vehicle.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292No. 950 decided Oct. 13, 1960 (Supreme Court Decision 7191 decided Oct. 13, 196; Decision No. 422(10)10 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant corporation

Gwangju High Court Decision 74Na113 delivered on May 16, 1974)

1. The decision on the claim for damages in respect of 74Na113 decided May 16, 1974 shall be revoked; and

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant (the plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s claim as to that part shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of the retrial and principal lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Main safety defense;

The plaintiff (the plaintiff 2) first asserted the death of non-party 1. The defendant (the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 2) became final and conclusive on March 22, 1975 by the Supreme Court's ruling of non-party 1. The plaintiff 2's appeal of non-party 1 and the defendant 2's appeal of non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a final and conclusive judgment of non-party 1. The plaintiff 2's appeal of non-party 1 and the defendant 2's appeal of non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a final and conclusive judgment of non-party 2. The plaintiff's appeal of non-party 1 and the defendant 2's appeal of non-party 2 cannot be viewed as a final and conclusive judgment of non-party 1. The plaintiff 2's appeal of non-party 4 and the defendant's appeal of non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a final and conclusive judgment of non-party 1 and the defendant 2's appeal of non-party 1 as a final and conclusive judgment of non-party 17.

2. Grounds for retrial

According to the contents of Eul evidence Nos. 6,7,8,9,10 (each judgment) without dispute between the parties, under the premise that non-party 1 was negligent in failing to fulfill his/her duty of care as to driving service, the party members dismissed the defendant's appeal on May 16, 1974. However, in the appeal case of Gwangju District Court 73No985, Oct. 17, 1974, the decision of the first instance on October 17, 1974, the decision of the first instance was reversed and acquitted, and the decision of the Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal on March 25, 1975, which became final and conclusive by non-party 1 can be acknowledged as having been admitted as evidence, on the premise that non-party 1 was negligent in performing his/her duty of care as to driving service. Since the above facts recognized as a ground for retrial is a different judgment by a civil or criminal judgment, or any other judgment modified by the defendant's judgment on March 25, 1975.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim for damages against the other party of the defendant company, which was made by the non-party 3 and the non-party 2 on the ground of the non-party 1's occupational negligence, reversed the decision of the party member on the ground that the non-party 1 also is liable for the death or injury caused by occupational negligence in the Supreme Court from November 25, 1975 to the non-party 1. Thus, the recognition of the liability for negligence against the non-party 1 is bound by the lower court on the same case. Thus, even if the defendant's ground for retrial exists, the second court, which is the lower court, should dismiss the request for retrial based on the fact-finding of the above Supreme Court. Thus, according to the evidence No. 6 without dispute, it can be acknowledged that the non-party 1 also reversed the above decision No. 75Na74,755 on the ground that the non-party 1 is liable for negligence against the non-party 1's occupational negligence as alleged by the plaintiff, but it cannot be accepted the plaintiff's claim for retrial.

3. Judgment on the merits

원고는 주장하기를 피고회사소속 (차량번호 생략)추럭의 운전사인 소외 1은 1972.11.5. 15:00경 광주에서 위 자동차를 운전하고 해남읍을 향하여 시속 약 40키로미터의 속도로 운행중 동일 18:00경 영암군 신북면 유곡리앞 길이 5.5미-터, 넓이 5.5미-터의 교량 내리막길에 이르러 교량앞 30미-터 거리에서 질주하여 오던 원고회사소속 (차량번호 생략) 왜곤형 찝차(운전사 소외 4)와 교행하게 되었는바 이때 소외 1은 약 30미-터 전방의 반대방향에서 교량을 향하여 달려오는 원고회사소속의 위 차량을 발견하였으므로 위 교량위에서의 교행시 충돌사고를 미연에 방지하기 위해서는 자동차 운전사로서는 원고측 자동차의 위치 및 동태를 세심히 살피면서 진로가 안전하면 진행하여야 할 업무상 주의의무가 있음에도 불구하고 이를 태만히 하여 상대방의 차량은 위 다리에서 보다 원거리에 있고 자기가 위 교량에 먼저 진입하게 되면 상대방이 교량앞에서 적의 정차하여 진로를 피행하여 주어 자기가 먼저 사고없이 위 교량을 통과할 수 있을 것으로 속단한 나머지 시속 약 30키로미터의 속도로 진행하여 위 교량에 진입하자 이어서 원고소속 차가 위 교량에 진입하는 순간에도 급정거조치를 취하지 아니하고 핸들만 우측으로 꺾은채 계속 진행한 과실로 동 교량의 약 1미-터의 지점에서 동인이 운전한 자동차의 좌측 앞바퀴 뒤쪽 윗부분으로 원고회사소속 차의 좌측 앞부분을 충격하여 원고회사의 위 찝차를 대파케하였으니 피고는 그의 피용자인 소외 1의 사용자로서 동인이 사무집행에 관한 불법행위로 인하여 원고에게 가한 손해를 배상할 의무가 있다고 주장하고, 피고는 오히려 위에서의 본 차량충돌사고는 원고회사의 피용인인 소외 4의 일방과실에 의해 발생한 것이고 소외 1은 어떠한 과실도 없으니 피고는 사용자의 책임을 질 수 없다고 다투므로 살피건대, 위에서 본 을 제9,10호증의 각 기재내용에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면, 본건 자동차사고가 일어난 충돌지점은 피고회사의 차량이 교량을 건너 영암쪽으로 약 5미-터정도 진행한 곳이고 차량의 충돌 각도도 원고회사의 지프가 피고회사의 추럭에 45도의 각도로서 달려들었고 충돌부위는 원고회사의 지프차 운전석 좌측 앞부분이 피고회사의 추럭좌측 운전석아래에 있는 좌측 앞바퀴 뒤쪽 상부부분(휠하우스 후미 및 그 상부하분)에 충돌하고 계속하여 동 지프차의 엔진보넷트 앞부분이 위 추럭의 좌측아래에 있는 유류탱크를 충돌한 다음 다시 좌측 뒷바퀴에 충돌된 것이며 소외 1로서는 동인이 운전한 추럭을 서둘러 급정차조치를 취하였으나 시간적으로 미치지 못하여 본건 충돌하고가 일어난 사실, 원고가 주장하는 본건 충돌지점이나 본건 교량(폭 5.3미터, 길이 5.45미터) 위에서는 위에서 본 바와 같은 각도에 의한 충돌이 불가능하고 위와 같은 45도의 각도에 의한 충돌이 아니고서는 위에서 본바와 같은 차량부위에 있어서의 충돌이나 파손이 일어날 수 없는 사실, 본건 교량이 놓여져 있는 광주 영암간의 국도는 노폭이 12미터이나 본건 교량의 노폭은 5.3미터에 불과하고 그 교량도 위 추럭이 운전하는 방향에서 우측에 위치하고 있으며 위 지프차 운전사인 소외 4가 동 도로우측을 운행타가 교량에 진입하기 위해서는 상당한 각도로 좌회전 하지 아니하면 안되게 되어 있는 사실과 소외 1이 운전한 추럭의 폭은 2.5미터, 길이는 8.5미터이고, 동 지프차의 폭은 1.7미터이어서 극히 서행을 하지않으면 본건 교량위에서 교행하기 어려운 상황등이었음을 각 인정할 수 있고 이에 일부 반하는 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 17, 을 제2호증 1,2,3, 갑 제4,5,6호증의 각 기재내용은 위 인정사실에 비추어 믿지아니하고 달리 반증이 없다.

Therefore, according to the above facts, since the non-party 1, who is the defendant company, entered the above bridge at considerable intervals, it shall be deemed that the non-party 1 has priority as to the passage of the bridge. On the other hand, it shall not be deemed that the other party's vehicle stops at a considerable distance before the bridge and stops at the bridge to keep out of the way, and it shall not be deemed that the other party's course safe, and if the other party's vehicle starts to pass through the bridge, it shall stop at the front of the bridge or if it is possible to pass through the bridge, the other party's vehicle should walk at extremely slowly and walk on the bridge (the trend of the operation by the non-party 1 is close to the right side of the bridge, so it shall not be said that the other party's vehicle has reached the right side of the bridge, and it shall not be said that the other party's vehicle might not have reached the road due to any unavoidable collision between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 45 degrees.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the non-party 1, a driver of the defendant company, was negligent in the collision of this case, shall be dismissed as it is without any further determination. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is based on the premise that the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, shall be dismissed as it is reasonable, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked as the case is reasonable, and the defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted as it is reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim of this part among the judgment of first instance shall be revoked,

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)