Whether the other party to the motor vehicle is obliged to drive the motor vehicle beyond the median line even if it comes to the front line of the motor vehicle.

In general, in cases where a driver of a motor vehicle overlaps with another motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the other motor vehicle has the trust of operating the other motor vehicle by keeping the said motor vehicle in a normal way. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is not obligated to drive the motor vehicle beyond the median line and even in the future, unless there is a special reason. However, in the opposite part, if the motor vehicle is sailing along the median line within the scope that it does not deviate from his/her own line, the motor vehicle owner is obliged to take measures to prevent the collision only when it is driven in an abnormal state beyond the median line.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1350, Jun. 8, 1988) (Law No. 1988, Mar. 14, 1989) (Gong1989,640)

Kim Jong-Un et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na3504 delivered on December 24, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that Non-party 1, a driver of the company belonging to the defendant, operated the above city bus around 19:15 on March 8, 1986 and proceeded at a speed of about 60 kilometers per hour on the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City 5-dong 604 Hanm chemical front of the road from the city bank to the speed of about 60 kilometers per hour, while the non-party 1, a driver of the company, tried to drive the above city bus at around 19:15 on the above time and tried to drive the above city bus at the speed of 60-meter from the city bank, and did not stop at the center of the above city bus at the speed of 2308 - 124 cc from the opposite part to the above bus, and did not stop at the speed of 16-meter away from the center of the vehicle to the right side of the above city bus, and did not stop at the speed of 16-meter away from the center.

However, in a case where the driver of a motor vehicle overlaps with another motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the other motor vehicle generally has the trust of operating the motor vehicle by keeping the other motor vehicle in a normal way. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is not obligated to drive the motor vehicle in the future beyond the median line (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu607, Mar. 8, 198). Thus, it is erroneous that the court below should pay attention to the non-party 1, a bus driver of this case, who belongs to the defendant company, to avoid collision with the other motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction while driving the motor vehicle in the opposite direction.

However, the court below should have a duty of care to avoid collisions only when the bus driver was operated in an abnormal state beyond the central line, and it is clear that the bus driver had a duty of care to avoid the collisions, and the above decision of the court below is not always clear, because the bus driver was operated beyond the central line and it was operated beyond the central line to the extent that it was found later than 3 meters before and after the point of time. However, even if it was viewed that the above decision of the court below was operated beyond the central line, it is hard to find that the bus driver had a duty of care to prevent the collisions, and it is hard to find that the bus driver was operated beyond 6 meters after the central line of time after the passage of the above bus, and it is hard to find that the bus driver was operated beyond 3 meters after the passage of the central line of time after the passage of the bus 1,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000).

Ultimately, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty of care when the driver of a motor vehicle overlaps with another motor vehicle, and it is clear that the judgment has an influence on the result of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thus, it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)