logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014. 3. 27. 선고 2013다215904 판결
[구상금][미간행]
Main Issues

When a motor vehicle which is unable to drive due to a preceding accident on an expressway or a motorway stops on the road along the main lane, there was a drilling accident by the latter vehicle following the occurrence of the preceding accident. However, in cases where the preceding motor vehicle driver is at a situation where there is no negligence in the preceding accident and there is no time to take safety measures after the accident, or it is difficult to expect such measures due to injury, etc., whether the negligence of the preceding motor vehicle driver can be considered in calculating the amount of damages caused by the preceding event (negative)

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 393, 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 66 of the Road Traffic Act; Article 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Dong Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant-Appellee

National Federation of Private Passenger Taxi Transport Business (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na16526 decided October 25, 2013

Text

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the event of a drilling accident by a vehicle following the vehicle that stops on the vehicle driving along the vehicle without taking safety measures, such as moving the vehicle to a safe place even though it is impossible to drive the vehicle due to a prior accident on the expressway or the motorway, or setting up a sign of a broken vehicle as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, there is no negligence on the occurrence of the preceding accident to the preceding vehicle, and there is no time to take safety measures, etc. after the accident, or there is no time to expect such measures due to the injury, etc., and there is no room to consider the negligence of the preceding vehicle driver in calculating the amount of damages caused by the subsequent event.

2. According to the facts established by the court below, the following facts are revealed: (i) the taxi driver prior to the Defendant insured passenger car driven along the two-lanes of the border expressway, and due to the shock of the first accident caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence in driving (21:47:39 seconds) the first accident, which led to the occurrence of the first accident, the said car stopped in the reverse direction on the first road; (ii) the taxi driver subsequent to the Defendant insured was driving in the same direction in the same direction as the first vehicle on the same road; and (iii) the said car was not discovered at the point of the accident; and (iv) the said car was driven by the said taxi driver without finding the said vehicle at the point of the accident (21:48:01 seconds); and (v) the said car was driven from the back section of the said vehicle on the basis of the impact of the said accident (21:48:01 seconds).

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s insured passenger car stops at the above accident point solely due to the negligence of the preceding taxi driver, and that the deceased, a driver of the Plaintiff’s insured passenger car, did not have sufficient time to take safety measures after the instant first accident, or to evacuate to a safe place after the instant second accident, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s accident was stopped due to the negligence of the preceding taxi driver. Since it is reasonable to deem that the deceased, a driver of the Plaintiff’s insured passenger car, had no time to take safety measures after the instant second accident, or to evacuate to the safe place, no negligence is recognized against the deceased.

4. Nevertheless, although the court below could expect measures to the extent of issuing a warning to the subsequent vehicle by operating emergency, etc. prior to leaving the vehicle to the deceased, the deceased was in a state of leaving the vehicle without taking such measures, and it is reasonable to deem that such negligence was partially contributed to the occurrence of the second accident of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on negligence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

5. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)

arrow