Principle of reliance and reliance on the central line on an expressway;

In principle, motor vehicles must pass along the right line on the expressway. Therefore, it is sufficient for the motor vehicle driver to believe that the vehicle that is driven on the opposite direction would not be able to scam the center line except in cases where the vehicle gets overtaking or scam the center line due to road conditions or other circumstances. Therefore, there is no duty of care to take measures such as predicting and accelerating the entry of the center line.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Do305 Delivered on March 24, 1981

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-soo

Chuncheon District Court Decision 81No258 delivered on September 17, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance, the point of accident in this case at Won-si is the East Sea Highway located in the East Sea in Gangwon-do and the center line at the opposite direction is a yellow-ray, and the center line at the opposite direction is a yellow-ray, and the center line at the opposite direction is overtaking. Accordingly, under such road condition, vehicles coming from the opposite direction of the defendant's running in the opposite direction are expected to proceed in the future of the defendant's way beyond the above white-ray. Thus, the defendant as the defendant neglected to take speed within the limited speed, and found that the truck driven by the victim while driving in the opposite direction above the speed of 80 km above the speed of speed, and caused the accident to the left-hand side of the defendant's vehicle by neglecting to take a speed of speed in preparation for such a case, and even if he had a duty of care to care in the field of duty, he did so, and caused the accident to the left-hand side of the defendant's vehicle.

However, since a motor vehicle should pass along the right line of the moving direction except in cases where it is inevitable due to overtaking on the expressway or road conditions or other circumstances, it is sufficient for the driver of the motor vehicle on the expressway to believe that the motor vehicle traveling along the opposite direction would not intrude the center line of the road except in cases where it overtakes the other direction or gets into the center line inevitably due to road conditions or other circumstances. Therefore, the defendant cannot be obliged to pay a duty of care to take measures to prevent any conflict, such as predicting and accelerating the opposite direction, such as the motor vehicle driven by the victim.

In addition, in light of the circumstances of the accident at the time of driving, the collision accident of this case revealed that the damaged vehicle violated traffic regulations and directly caused the operation vehicle over the center line of the road. According to the records, it is doubtful that the distance from the vehicle at the time when the other party discovered that the vehicle invaded the center line is over 15 meters. Thus, considering the situation of the brake road, the speed of the other party vehicle, and the driving distance of the other party vehicle at a speed of 70 km speed, it is possible to avoid the collision even if the defendant operates the vehicle at a speed of 70 km speed above the speed limit. In such a case, without examining and determining whether the operation of the vehicle in excess of the speed is the cause of the accident, it cannot be said that there is negligence that caused the accident of this case operated under the speed above the speed limit.

The court below's decision of the first instance that held that the defendant was negligent in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the above points and failing to perform his duty of care in the accident of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on duty of care and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and therefore, the argument is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)