[1] The duty of care of the bicycle driver who intends to turn to the left on the bicycle road

[2] The case holding that in a case where a bicycle rider, who had done a left-hand turn on the right side of a road for the combined use of pedestrians and bicycles, was liable for damages on the ground that the preceding bicycle rider was negligent in failing to give due notice of his driving direction or by failing to perform his duty of due care by taking into account the traffic situation of the rear after the distance, in a case where the preceding bicycle rider suddenly stopped along the bicycle rider

[1] If the structure of a bicycle road differs from two bicycles, or if it is possible for a bicycle to pass ahead of a bicycle going ahead in the same lane, a bicycle may be anticipated that the latter bicycle will pass ahead of the preceding bicycle in the same lane for overtaking ahead of the preceding bicycle without impairing the opposite lane. In this case, if a bicycle going ahead on the right side of the lane makes a left-hand turn, it may interfere with the passage of a bicycle going ahead on the left side of the lane or a bicycle going ahead to the left-hand side. Thus, a bicycle driver who intends to turn to the left-hand turn is obliged to inform the bicycle driver of the direction of the bicycle going ahead through a hand signal, etc., and to turn to the left safely by informing the latter of the direction of the passage, or by taking into account the traffic situation near the direction of the passage.

[2] In a case where a bicycle rider, who had done a left-hand turn on the right side of a road for the combined use of pedestrians and bicycles, was immediately stopped to avoid a collision and passed along with a bicycle, the case holding that the previous bicycle rider is liable for damages on the ground that he was negligent in failing to exercise his duty of care by properly notifying his driving direction or by taking into account the traffic situation of the after-distance, and on the ground that he was negligent (Provided, That the responsibility is limited to 20% by recognizing the negligence such as securing the safety distance of the latter bicycle rider, securing the safety distance,

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Seoul Law Firm, Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da77035 Decided July 8, 2009

September 29, 2009

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,753,075 won with 5% interest per annum from August 7, 2009 to November 3, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 4/5 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,500,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 20% interest per annum from the service date of a duplicate of the petition of appeal of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, 5, Gap evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 19, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On August 27, 2008, at around 17:00, the Defendant was driving a bicycle and divided into two lanes, at a speed of about 30 km per hour from the shot bank to the sloping bank, from the right side of the road for the combined use of pedestrians and bicycles. On August 27, 2008, the Defendant was driving a bicycle at a speed of about 30 km per hour from the shot bank to the sloping bank, and the Plaintiff was driving a part of the right side side of the

B. The Defendant, when coming to and coming to the vicinity of the high-water site in the direction of the course, was cut off to the Han River ginging across the left-hand side of the running direction, proceeded on the road by getting Hand on his own left-hand side, and the Plaintiff followed by the Defendant was immediately stopped to avoid a collision with the Defendant’s bicycle, and was transferred to the right-hand side of the road (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and thereby suffered injury, such as cutting down on the upper part of the upper part of the road.

C. Dual roads for both pedestrians and the Defendant’s bicycles run by themselves are one lane with a width of about 2.7 meters, without a separate lane, and, in its structure, it is possible to ensure that the two bicycles are set aside in the lane, or that the bicycles going ahead in the lane are passing ahead.

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The accident of this case occurred while shocking the plaintiff's bicycle in the course of the plaintiff's right-hand left-hand turn by overing the central color cell line without any safety measure or prior notice against the plaintiff who was going back immediately after the defendant. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The instant accident occurred in the course of the Plaintiff, who was going later than the Defendant, proceeding without properly securing the safety distance with the Defendant and left-hand turn, and the driver of a bicycle driving on a two-way road for pedestrians and bicycles is obligated to proceed by examining the direction of proceeding or the right and the right, but is not obligated to proceed to take into account the traffic situation at the rear direction. Thus, the instant accident occurred by the Plaintiff’s fault and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

(A) First of all, as to the circumstances of the instant accident, it is difficult to believe that the instant accident occurred while making a left-hand turn at the location of the instant accident and shocking the Plaintiff’s bicycle at the point of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, as seen earlier, the instant accident occurred in the process of rapidly stopping the Plaintiff’s left-hand turn in order to avoid the Defendant’s left-hand turn.

(B) Furthermore, with respect to whether there was the Defendant’s negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident, the health zone and the road at the point where the instant accident occurred are one lane without a separate lane, as seen earlier. However, the road at the point where the instant accident occurred may make it possible for the two bicycles to go ahead of the preceding bicycle in one lane in the structure of the road, or for the bicycles going ahead in the same lane without the opposite lane, and may expect the following bicycles to pass ahead of the preceding bicycle in the same lane for overtaking. In this case, if the preceding bicycle going to turn to the left, it may interfere with the passage of bicycles going behind or attempting to turn to the left at the right right side of the lane, so the Defendant is obliged to go to go to the left in advance while proceeding to the left side of the road, to inform the bicycle driver of the direction of proceeding and to turn to the left, and to safely turn to the left by taking into account the traffic situation of the latter.

However, according to the above facts, although the plaintiff was proceeding on the left side of the close distance of the defendant, the defendant was negligent in making a left-hand turn on the left side of the lane without fulfilling the above duty of care, and as a result, the plaintiff was making a sudden stop in order to avoid a collision with the defendant and the accident of this case occurred, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

(C) On the other hand, the defendant asserts that it is not possible to impose the above duty of care on the bicycle driver because it is rather harmful to traffic because it gives the hand signals with the hand hand, or cares behind the dog. However, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable since it is sufficient for the bicycle driver to take a close distance to the extent that it might hinder the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand-hand turn-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-on-way-

(2) Limitation on liability for damages

According to the above evidence, even in the process of avoiding the defendant who is to turn to the left, the plaintiff was negligent in not operating safely and sufficiently all devices of the bicycle, such as barc, etc., while driving ahead of the defendant, without securing safety distance, and even in the process of avoiding the defendant who is to turn to the left, and such negligence of the plaintiff also caused the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages. Therefore, in calculating the plaintiff's damages, it shall be considered in calculating the damages of this case. However, considering the circumstances surrounding the accident of this case and the circumstances where the plaintiff was to go to the defendant, the plaintiff's negligence in the occurrence of the accident of this case seems to exceed the defendant's negligence, and thus, the defendant's liability is limited to 20%.

C. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Total amount of the medical expenses: 8,265,378 won (excluding the part of the Health Insurance Corporation's liability among the medical expenses receipts);

(2) Bicycle repair cost: 500,000 won out of the repair cost of KRW 520,300 on a written estimate, as sought by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 9-1 to 10

(3) Limitation of liability: 1,753,075 won (=8,765,378 won x 20%)

(d) Condolence: 1,000,000 won; and

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff's age, the background and result of the accident of this case, and various circumstances shown in the argument of this case

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,753,075 won (i.e., king treatment expenses and bicycle repair expenses of KRW 1,753,075 + consolation money of KRW 1,00,000 + as requested by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff from August 7, 2009, the delivery date of a copy of the petition of appeal of this case until November 3, 2009, which is the date when the judgment was rendered by the court of first instance, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until November 3, 209, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, it is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sung-won (Presiding Judge)