Duty of care of a motor vehicle driver who operates a motor vehicle;

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act, exclusive roads for motor vehicles are installed to ensure that only motor vehicles can move along or cross the roads for motor vehicles. Therefore, a driver of a motor vehicle operating exclusive roads for motor vehicles has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle in advance so that pedestrians crossing without permission may stop immediately, except in extenuating circumstances.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Young-gu

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No1425 delivered on July 7, 1988

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

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below which held that when the defendant drives the above vehicle at around 19:00 on Feb. 16, 1987 as eight tons of cargo driver, the defendant driven the above vehicle at around 19:00, and the Sungdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu 2 driven the 401 river road at about a speed of about 50 kilometers from the Young River basin to the Sung River basin. This is the place where people are expected to walk up the river, and since it is particularly after the day after the day and after the day, the front river, etc. is narrow and the front road, etc. is narrow so in such a case, the driver engaged in driving service has a duty of care to care in driving safely while driving the vehicle at the same time with the driver's negligence, the driver was found late after the opening of the victim's seat crossing the right side, but it did not reach the right side of the defendant's body, thereby maintaining the collision between the victim's body and the front road.

2. However, according to the record, the road along which the above accident occurred is an exclusive road for motor vehicles, and the motorway under the Road Traffic Act is installed to allow only motor vehicles to pass along or cross the motorway, and pedestrians, other than motor vehicles, and vehicles and horses, other than motor vehicles, shall not pass or cross the motorway (Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 58). Therefore, a driver of a motor vehicle driving a motorway, who is a driver of a motor vehicle driving a motorway, has no duty of care to ensure that pedestrians who walk the motorway would be anticipated to walk immediately, barring special circumstances.

Furthermore, according to the investigation records (in particular, the fact that the defendant's suspect examination report and the prosecutor's suspect examination report on the defendant), the motorway, which is the place of the accident of this case, has a wire network on the side side opposite to the river side, and in fact, it is difficult to expect that the driver will cross the roadway because it prevents the pedestrian's crossing, and the time limit limit of the accident place is 60 kilometers per hour, and the defendant finds the victim who crosses the right side on the left side of the road of this case while driving on the speed of 50 kilometers per hour and finds the victim who crosses the right side on the left side of the road of this case and took urgent measures, but there was a collision. Under the above circumstances, it is difficult to hold the defendant liable for negligence as the driver unless there is any special circumstance to deem that the defendant knew, or could have

The court below committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the duty of care of the vehicle driver on the motorway or incomplete hearing without examining the above special circumstances at all. Therefore, the argument in this regard is reasonable.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)