Whether a driver of a motor vehicle can be liable for occupational negligence in the case where the other motor vehicle is believed to operate his/her motor vehicle beyond a traffic offense and not to go ahead of the driving of his/her motor vehicle beyond a central line.

In the absence of special circumstances, a driver of a motor vehicle is not obliged to take measures to prevent a collision, such as driving the motor vehicle driven by the other party through traffic regulations, predicting and accelerating that the motor vehicle will enter the front side of the motor vehicle that he/she drives, etc., and thus, has no duty of care to take such measures. Therefore, in cases where the other party is believed to maintain traffic regulations and operate the motor vehicle with the belief that the other party would not go ahead of the vehicle that he/she drives beyond the central line, and the other party would not go ahead of the course of the motor vehicle, and the other party has caused an accident, such as a collision, the driver of the motor vehicle shall not be held

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 73No6475 delivered on April 23, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds of appeal

On the other hand, if the defendant had driven the above 50-meter speed higher than that of the point of the accident, the defendant should have checked the above 5-meter vehicle at the point of the accident, and if he had driven the above 15-meter later than that of the above 15-meter vehicle, he should have checked the above 5-meter vehicle at the intersection, but he should have checked the above 1-meter vehicle beyond that of the above 40-meter vehicle, and if the defendant did not neglect the operation of the 5-meter vehicle at the point of the collision, he should have discovered the damaged vehicle at a more than that of the defendant's vehicle and take measures necessary for the prevention of the accident, such as collision, but the defendant should not have driven the above 1-meter vehicle at the point of the above 5-meter vehicle, and it is clear that the defendant would have driven the above 1-meter vehicle at the point of the above 1-meter vehicle, and the defendant would have driven the above 8-meter vehicle at the central level of traffic offense.

According to the facts found in the original judgment, the defendant believed that the damaged vehicle which had been operated in the opposite direction would not go to the front direction of the vehicle driven by the defendant beyond the median line, and that it would not go to the front direction of the vehicle driven by the defendant above the median line, and that the damaged vehicle driving the accident point at a speed of about 50 km from about 50 km to the opposite direction, and entered 10 meters away from the center line to the front direction of the defendant's vehicle running beyond the speed of about 50 km, so the defendant could not be found guilty of the collision with the 3-wheeled vehicle without taking the following emergency measures, but it is obvious that the above damaged vehicle would not go to the front direction of the vehicle driven by the defendant beyond the central line, and thus, the defendant could not be deemed to have been negligent in driving the vehicle under the duty of due care at a speed exceeding 90 meters prior to the rapid collision and thus, the defendant's appeal on the ground of appeal was justified and unreasonable.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Hong Man-hee (Presiding Justice)