(a) A duty of care of a driver driving along a road along which a median line is installed;

(b) Method of coping with drivers who have stopped to turn to the left at the opposite lane;

A. In the event that an automobile driver operating a road along which a median line is installed overlaps with a motor vehicle travelling along the opposite direction, the other motor vehicle does not have a duty of care to expect and drive the motor vehicle beyond the median line to enter its own line, unless there are general and special circumstances that the other motor vehicle has the trust of operating the motor vehicle in a normal way.

B. If a motor vehicle driven at the opposite direction stops while operating a power-driven signal to turn to the left, it would normally turn to the right after the running of the straight-driven motor vehicle. Therefore, the driver of the straight-driven motor vehicle can drive it with the trust that the course of the motor vehicle stopped is not infringed, and it cannot be called an abnormal response.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 23 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1258 Decided November 26, 1985

Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant 17

Attorney Lee Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na245 delivered on February 26, 1988

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

On the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, the lower judgment explains the circumstances leading up to the instant accident. On October 9, 1985, the Defendant’s direct bus driver, coming to the port of call and coming to the port of Gangseo-gun, which led to the 13:20 of the above bus, and went to the port of Gangseo-gun, the lower court’s judgment was explained as follows: (a) if the bus was sent to the string line, which is the first line connected directly to the 1st entrance of the room, the string line; (b) the string line, which is the first line connected directly to the string line, was going to the string line; and (c) the string bus, which was driven by Nonparty 1, followed at a rapid speed; and (d) the string bus, which was driven by Nonparty 1, went to the left at the intersection point; (d) while the string line was put to the left at the intersection line, the remaining string part of the bus, which was driven to the left by the front part of the bus.

In addition, it is clear that Non-party 1's truck without any abnormal defect or functional obstacle to a direct bus and provided the first cause of the accident at the time, but it was found at approximately 150 meters prior to the point of accident that the above-wing bus would close close to the bus and that it would not immediately turn to the left, but it was found that the closed bus would not have a high speed or right-hand turn to the right-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-out, and that it would not have a high-speed driving method of the bus, which would have a high-speed driving method, even if it would have been installed in the right-hand bus and would not go to the right-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-out bus, and it would have been difficult for the defendant to go to the right-hand turn-out bus, which would have a high-speed driving speed and speed-down bus to the right-hand end of the bus, and it would not have any conflict with the other party, even if it was found that it would have been difficult to go to the right-hand.

Even according to the court below's decision, it is difficult to find out the cause of the instant accident, even if it is somewhat excessive around that time, that the end-of-life bus, which stops with a stop without preparing to turn to the left at the left-hand end at the point of the accident, and the end-of-the-day new bus, which stops with a headlight to turn to the left-hand turn. Thus, if it is such circumstance, it should be seen that the end-of-life bus which stops with a right-to-off operation cannot be seen as reaching the right-hand bus with the right-hand bus going to go to the right-hand turn, and even if it is somewhat excessive around that time, it cannot be said that the accident caused the instant accident. The accident is almost different from the accident site where only a sealed bus does not prepare to turn to the left-hand turn, while operating the right-hand bus at a speed lower than that of the stop, and thus, it can be seen that it does not affect the right-hand bus and the right-hand bus operation measure.

The judgment of the court below is just because it constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)