The meaning of the obligation to secure the safety distance under Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "All vehicles follow the vehicle behind which is going in the same direction, if the vehicle ahead of it stops suddenly, it shall secure a necessary distance to avoid any collision with the vehicle ahead of it." This includes not only the case where the vehicle ahead of it stops by the power of the motor vehicle ahead of it, but also the case where it stops suddenly due to any operation other than the motor vehicle ahead of it.

Article 17(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 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)

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Yu Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 97Na3286 delivered on August 22, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below, and there is a proximate causal relation with the death of useful driving, and there is no error in the misapprehension of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The court below rejected the ground of appeal on this point. The judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "if all vehicles follow another vehicle behind the vehicle running in the same direction, it shall secure the necessary distance to avoid any collision with the vehicle running ahead of it when it stops suddenly." This shall include not only the case where the vehicle running ahead of it stops by the power of the motor vehicle driving ahead of it, but also the case where it stops suddenly due to the operation other than the motor vehicle driving (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da30823, Oct. 11, 1996).

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the negligence that Defendant 1 did not observe the safety distance with the vehicle in front has caused the instant accident, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. This ground of appeal is rejected.

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)