The duty of care of the driver of a motor vehicle who has observed that the motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction is already in abnormal operation by breaking the central line.

The number of vehicles operated in accordance with the self-vehicle line on the road where the yellow ray of the prohibition of intrusion is installed is common to trust the vehicle from the opposite direction to the operation load according to the opposite direction, and even when the center line is invaded, it is not obliged to drive the vehicle even when the vehicle is faced with the opposite line. However, if the vehicle coming from the opposite direction has been witnessed that it is operating normally due to the collision of the center line, the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents by taking appropriate measures, such as reducing the speed by carefully examining the movement of the vehicle and reducing the speed.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Yang-nam

Cheongju District Court Decision 85No257 delivered on November 8, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

The driver's number of motor vehicles operated along his own lane on the road where the yellow ray of the prohibition of blick line is set is usually trusted in the opposite direction along the opposite direction, and even in the case where he gets involved in the opposite line, the center line is invaded, and there is no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle. However, in the opposite direction, the driver's duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents is established by predicting the possibility of harming the driver's movement of the motor vehicle and taking appropriate measures such as reducing the speed by carefully examining the movement of the vehicle and reducing the speed.

According to the evidence of the first instance court as cited by the court below, according to the victim's statement as to the virtue of the preparation of the judicial police assistant, it is recognized that the victim's Obabababababababababababababab, and the victim's right-hand side of the driver's vehicle was collisioned. According to the fact that the victim's right-hand side of the vehicle at the location of the accident of this case is about 200 meters, the distance from the front-hand side of the vehicle of this case is about 200 meters, and the defendant discovered about about 100 meters from the front-hand side. Meanwhile, according to each protocol of examination of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor and the judicial police assistant, it is recognized that the defendant continued to operate the defendant without taking measures such as finding the victim's Obabababa and decreasing the speed.

In full view of the above facts, the Defendant had been negligent in operating the Defendant only without taking necessary measures for the prevention of accidents, such as getting out on the side of the road by getting out at a speed of 100 meters due to the 100 meters prior to the occurrence of the central line with the Defendant’s Obabro, which was fluened by the Defendant with the central line, even though he had already been discovered at the front of the 100 meters prior to the occurrence of the disaster. Therefore, the lower court, which recognized the Defendant’s liability for negligence, did not err by violating the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles, and by failing to deem each case as an appropriate precedent in this case, it is unreasonable

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)