[1] The case where the principle of trust does not apply to the traffic-related women

[2] The duty of care to the driver of a motor vehicle who stops for signalling the atmosphere for the traffic of the motor vehicle

[1] The principle of trust is excluded in a case where there are special circumstances in which the other party traffic controller cannot be trusted to the road traffic in compliance with the various laws and regulations of the road traffic.

[2] Even if the driver of a motor vehicle stopped for signalling, barring any special circumstance, he/she is sufficient to say that the driver of a motor vehicle proceeding along the sea-to-land, barring any special circumstance, if he/she trusted that the motor vehicle in front of the signalling atmosphere is a stop for the signal atmosphere, and without stopping, he/she is not obliged to take safety measures, such as stopping without starting even if he/she is expected to change the course to the right side of the motor vehicle in front and proceeding at a speed where the side was changed to the right side, while driving the speed of the road along the side, and expected to change the course to the front side of the motor vehicle, and thus, he/she is not obliged to take safety measures.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 17-2 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Do1328 delivered on August 23, 1983 (Gong1983, 1453), Supreme Court Decision 84Do79 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 935), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12068 delivered on September 5, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2056)

Co., Ltd.

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Kim Jong-dae, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na74201, 74218 delivered on December 24, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The principle of trust does not apply to a case where there are special circumstances that make it impossible for the traffic controlr to believe that the traffic controlr will go to road traffic in compliance with all the road traffic laws and regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do79, Apr. 10, 1984). However, even if the driver of a motor vehicle stopped for the traffic signal, barring any special circumstances, it is sufficient to say that the driver of a motor vehicle stopped for the traffic signal runs to go to the direction behind the vehicle, and even if he did not stop, it would be sufficient if he trust that the driver would go to go to the direction behind to stop for the traffic signal, and even if the traffic controlr was expected to go to change the course toward the side by avoiding the direction of the motor vehicle in front, and even if the traffic controlr was going to go to the direction towards the side, it does not take safety measures such as taking a stop without starting and stopping the vehicle's own way toward the front side, and it does not take a duty of care of safety measures, such as a stop from the point where the traffic is extended to stop.

After recognizing each fact, the court below held that since Article 17-2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that all drivers of vehicles running a two-lane road shall not change their course when it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of all vehicles running in the direction to which they intend to change their course, the drivers of vehicles who intend to change their course have a duty of care to change their course after securing a reasonable distance, this does not change from the side to the road, and it does not change to the road. The driver of a vehicle driving a road as a driver of a vehicle driving a road, unless there are special circumstances, shall be trust that the other vehicle normally proceeds while maintaining the lane, and that it would not immediately enter the front side of the vehicle driving a vehicle driving a two-lane road to the degree that it obstructs normal passage, and therefore, the driver of the vehicle driving a two-lane road would not have a duty of care to expect the change of course to the future of its own course. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to trust in the grounds for appeal.

2. The non-party, who is a driver of the vehicle in this case, has a duty of care to take appropriate safety measures after finding that the defendant, who is the driver of the vehicle in this case, is a driver of the vehicle in this case, and the defendant, as the driver of the vehicle in this case, has a duty of care to take appropriate safety measures accordingly. However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the defendant, as the driver of the vehicle in this case, is recognized to have changed the course of the vehicle in this case to prevent the driver from changing the course of the vehicle in this case, without using a safe distance toward the left side from the side of the point where the vehicle in this case is not the driver of the vehicle in this case. In light of the fact that the non-party, who is the driver of the vehicle in this case, could not avoid a collision even if he was taking urgent action at that time, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was a negligence with the non-party, and there is no error

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)