Whether a driver who finds a internship in the U.S. permitted zone has a duty of care to drive his/her vehicle while expected to stop his/her career while driving a internship prior to himself/herself (negative)

Unless there are special circumstances, the driver of the U.S., who finds it difficult for other vehicles to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collisions, and has no duty of care to drive the vehicle while expecting that the latter vehicle will drive the vehicle to stop her course while driving the vehicle. Therefore, the driver of the preceding U.S. vehicle has a duty of care to ascertain whether there are vehicles normally driving on the opposite lane in the direction that he/she was driving and whether there are vehicles driving the U.S., but has already been aware that the latter vehicle is a U.S. driver, barring special circumstances, such as where he/she had already known that the latter vehicle is a U.S. driver, there is no duty of care to expect that the latter vehicle is a U.S. driver, while driving the latter vehicle is a U.S. driver with a duty of care to expect that he/she will drive the future.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 18 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2004Da29934 delivered on June 10, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1134)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gwangju, Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Shin-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 18, 2009

1. At around 08:30 on November 8, 2008, the Nonparty, while driving a bus number 1 omitted) on the four-lane road in front of a bus terminal in front of the bus terminal in which the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) was driving on a four-lane road (vehicle number 1 omitted) and making a Uton on the said road, confirming that there is no obligation to pay the insurance proceeds to the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) for the traffic accident that conflict with the U.S. car number 2 omitted.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The main office is as set forth in Paragraph (1).

Counterclaim: The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) 12,712,624 won with 5% interest per annum from November 8, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 08:30 on Nov. 8, 2008, the Nonparty: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (vehicle number 1 omitted) at the intersection in front of the bus terminal in front of the bus terminal in which the sign board was instigated; and (b) opened a straight line signal in the section where the walking signal and the turn to the left is permitted at the time of the walking signal and the turn to the left, with one lane (on the left board and the U.S.) of the four-lanes in which the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (vehicle number 1 omitted) was driven.

B. Around that time, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle number 2 omitted) and followed the said knife in a zone where U.S. is permitted, and the said knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1 to 6, Gap evidence 6-5, 6, 9, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-2, and all the arguments.

2. Determination:

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts as follows: “(1) The instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s negligence. ② However, the Nonparty, the Plaintiff’s driver, who is the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, was engaged in a normal internship according to the new name, and thus there is no negligence. ③ As such, the Plaintiff, the insurer, as the Plaintiff did not assume the responsibility for the operator, is not liable to the Defendant. ④ Therefore, the Plaintiff’s liability for the payment of insurance proceeds to the Defendant does not exist in relation to the instant accident.”

(2) The defendant's assertion

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the cause of the counterclaim in this case is as follows: “(1) although there is any negligence on the part of the Defendant with respect to the instant accident, the Nonparty was likely to make a U-turn as well, and thus, he was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to have been expected to have been driven. ② Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to the instant accident that occurred in the course of operating the said U-turn as an insurer. ③ Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to the instant accident that occurred in the said U-turn as an insurer. ③ Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 12,712,624 [10,00,000, which is part of the U.S. medical expenses + KRW 11,781,560, which is part of the U.S. medical expenses + KRW 10,000 + KRW 10,000]

(3) The issues of the instant case

According to the above facts of recognition, if the defendant had had the preceding vehicle followed to the internship, he/she is negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to prevent the accident by properly examining the direction of the preceding vehicle.

Therefore, the issue of the instant case is whether the Nonparty, who is the driver of the said passenger car, was negligent in relation to the instant accident.

B. Whether the Nonparty was negligent

(1) The U.S. driver who confirms that there is no concern for obstructing the normal traffic of other vehicles and horses in the U.S. Permission Zone is sufficient when other vehicles are believed to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision, barring special circumstances, and the latter driver has no duty of care to drive the vehicle while predicting that the latter vehicle will stop its course while driving the vehicle.

(2) Therefore, in the instant case, barring special circumstances such as whether there are vehicles normally proceeding on the opposite lane in the direction of the Nonparty, and whether there are vehicles operating a U-turn prior to themselves, it is reasonable to deem that there was no duty of care to anticipate that the vehicles following the instant accident would make a U-turn in the future, while the vehicle following the instant accident had already been aware that there was a U-turn. Therefore, barring any special circumstance as to the instant accident, the Nonparty did not have any negligence on the part of the driver of the said U.S. passenger vehicle, who is the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, unless there is any negligence.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, although the accident of this case occurred during the operation of the above van, the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the defendant, who is the injured, and there was no negligence on the above van driver, the driver or operator of the above van is not liable to the defendant with respect to the accident of this case, and the plaintiff, the insurer, is not liable to the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, in relation to the accident of this case, there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money to the defendant, and there is a benefit of confirmation in actively disputing the defendant, such as filing a counterclaim. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the defendant's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit without examining the scope of compensation for damages. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Jin-jin