(a) Whether the duty of care is expected to operate a vehicle that enters the opposite lane by leading the vehicle along the opposite lane is anticipated to run even when the yellow central line is invaded with the yellow central line;

The driver of a vehicle running on a straight line with a yellow central line on the two straight lines, barring any special circumstance, is believed to not enter the straight line that the vehicle driven on the opposite side would go beyond the central line of the road, and even if there is a vehicle that enters the opposite side by leading in the lawsuit connected to the opposite line, it cannot be said that the vehicle is obliged to drive the vehicle on his own or her own by predicting the criminal act of entering the straight line that is legally prohibited, even if there is a vehicle that enters the opposite line, even if there is a vehicle that is led by the leading in the lawsuit connected to the opposite line.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Attorneys Park Jong-young et al. (private-party)

High Court Decision 94No69 delivered on January 9, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the High Court for Armed Forces.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on macroficial evidence, that the defendant was driving at approximately 40 KK per hour on July 16, 1993 and operated along the first line of the second line from the boundary of the New-dong Hospital in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul to the south cycle, the second line was driving on the front of the two-way national school located in the same 445 meters of the same day at approximately 12:30 on the same day. This road has a 40 degrees of 40 degrees of light-lapic and a road with a width of about 3 meters on the left and right side of the road, leading the vehicle and the upper part of the road to enter the front side of the road. In such a case, the person engaged in driving service, despite his duty of care to prevent accidents by driving the front part of the road with the front part of the driver's license, who had been on the right side of the victim's upper part of the road with the front part of the upper part of the driver's license and the upper part.

However, barring any special circumstance, the driver of a vehicle running on the straight line of the second yellow line with the two yellow central lines shall be deemed to be in accord with our empirical rules to believe that it would not enter the straight line of the other party, barring any special circumstance, that the vehicle driven on the other party to the other party would go beyond the road central line, and even if there is a vehicle entering the road led by the leading in the opposite line, the vehicle cannot be said to have a duty to go through the vehicle of the other party or to be in the order of the other party to go through the vehicle of the vehicle, or to go through the vehicle of the other party, because it is anticipated that the vehicle would go through the vehicle of the other party to go in the middle line with the legally prohibited central line, and if it is difficult to view that there is a possibility of avoidance as the court below acknowledged, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational negligence, and such illegality has affected the result of the judgment, and therefore, it is therefore justified.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)