The duty of care required for the driver of a motor vehicle to be observed in advance when the motor vehicle in the opposite line was invaded by the central line.

In general, a driver of a motor vehicle operating a road along his/her median line with his/her own median line is trusting that he/she will operate the motor vehicle. Thus, the other motor vehicle has no duty of care to take special measures by predicting that the motor vehicle is frighten in the center line of the road. However, if a motor vehicle already coming from the center line has observed in advance, it can be recognized that the other motor vehicle was negligent in the occurrence of an accident caused by its own collision with the other motor vehicle, only if it neglected to take appropriate defensive driving measures to prevent the occurrence of a danger caused by a collision between the vehicle and its own intersection by sending or acceleratinging warning signals with a horn or headlight in preparation for interference with the course by continuing operation of the motor vehicle normally, even if it neglected to take such measures, even if it neglected to take appropriate preventive driving measures to prevent the occurrence of a danger caused by a collision with the other motor vehicle and its own motor vehicle.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorneys Hong Hong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na38550 delivered on June 19, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In general, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a central line along his/her own lane is trust in the operation of the motor vehicle in compliance with the main line. Thus, the other motor vehicle has no duty of care to take special measures by anticipateing the other motor vehicle to sloping the central line of the road. However, in case where the other motor vehicle already in line with the central line has observed in advance that the other motor vehicle is running along an abnormal central line, the other motor vehicle may be deemed to be negligent in the occurrence of the other motor vehicle's collision with the other motor vehicle only if it neglected to take appropriate preventive driving measures to prevent the occurrence of the danger caused by the collision between the vehicle and its own lane by sending or accelerating a warning signal using a horn or headlight in preparation for interference with the course by continuing operation of the motor vehicle normally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da10830, Sep. 9, 1994; 203Da19639, Mar. 6, 196). 196

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined on June 27, 194 that the Defendant would not drive the deceased’s vehicle more than 9109 U.S. car on his own, but rather than 1:5, that the Defendant would not drive the vehicle on his own, and would have caused the death of the deceased’s vehicle on the left-hand side by using the front line of the vehicle at the speed of 1:30 p.m., which was considerably lower than 1:0 p.m., and that the Defendant would not drive the vehicle on his own, but would have caused the death of the deceased’s vehicle on the left-hand side by using the front line of the vehicle at the speed of 3:0 p.m., the Defendant would not drive the vehicle on his own at the speed of this case, and would not drive the vehicle on the left-hand side of the vehicle at the speed of 1:20 p.m., on the other hand, by using the front line at the speed of the vehicle at which the accident occurred.

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the principle of trust due to incomplete hearing, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the Supreme Court decision delivered in the ground of appeal

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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)