The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that D’s fault ratio and D’s fault ratio were 5:5, on the ground that: (a) while D had attempted to overtake the instant Otoba while following the instant Otoba, it was negligent for the Plaintiff to avoid the instant accident or to turn to the left at a speed exceeding the restricted speed, it was found that D had failed to observe the instant Otoba, which was driven by the Plaintiff; (b) but (c) had failed to avoid the instant accident or prevent the expansion of damage.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Fact-finding or determination of the ratio of negligence by the parties involved in a tort should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity even if it is a fact-finding authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da37530, Jul. 24, 2008). Meanwhile, where a traffic accident is committed in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act refers to a case where a traffic accident is caused by driving a central line by breaking the central line of the road, i.e., where a traffic accident directly causes the occurrence of a traffic accident. Thus, if the central line intrusion is not a direct cause of the occurrence of a traffic accident, the traffic accident is not included in the case where the central line is in the course of the central course of the operation of the traffic accident.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5010, Sept. 15, 2005).

According to the facts established by the court below, while driving the instant Otoba and driving the instant road, the Plaintiff attempted to turn to the left beyond the median line of the yellow point to enter the village from the direction of the proceeding to the left-hand side. On the back of the Plaintiff’s proceeding, the Plaintiff continued to go to the left-hand turn, following the instant Otoba in the direction behind the Plaintiff’s proceeding, and the Plaintiff was in conflict with the D Driving Vehicle, which attempted to overtake the instant vehicle by a opposite vehicle beyond the median line of the yellow point in violation of the speed limit.

(c).