Duty of care to the motor vehicle operator who operates a non- packing road not marked on the median line;

Even if the central line is not marked, the driver of a motor vehicle who is proceeding normally with a road, the width of which is so wide that the motor vehicle can move to the right side from the center of the road, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the driver of a motor vehicle who is proceeding normally with the road that is so wide that the motor vehicle can move to the right side from the center of the road, barring special circumstances. Thus, the driver of a motor vehicle is not obliged to exercise a duty of care to take special measures because the motor vehicle coming to the center or the left side of the road is anticipated to go to go to the center or the left side of the road. However, in case where the driver of a motor vehicle coming to the fore has observed that the driver of a motor vehicle is already proceeding to the center or the left side of the road and is proceeding to impede the course by an ombudsman, the driver of the motor vehicle is unable to take appropriate measures to prevent any collision with the driver of the motor vehicle due to his or her gross negligence, even if he or she did not have a duty of care to take appropriate measures to prevent collision.

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

A

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 91No1308 delivered on April 17, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below found that the road of this case at the entrance of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, is about 5 meters wide and passing through route buses, but it is necessary to do so, so the vehicle's width is about 1.68 meters long and that the defendant driven the road of this case at a speed of about 30 km from the long side of the road of this case, while driving the road of this case at a speed of about 50 km away from the opposite direction the road of this case, it was first discovered at about 50 meters away from the road of this case, but the victim was not able to determine certain circumstances, and the accident of this case was conducted at the right side of the road of this case without using the left side of the road of this case, and it was found that there was no possibility of driving the vehicle of this case at the right side of the road of this case without using the front side of the road of this case. Thus, the victim was also able to see the right side side of the road of this case and without using the front side of the road of this case.

2. However, even if the median road is not marked, it is common that the driver of a motor vehicle normally proceeding on a road, the width of which is so wide that the motor vehicle can move opposite to each other, barring any special circumstance, and trust that the driver of a motor vehicle will pass on the right side from the center of the road to the traffic of the traffic. Thus, the driver has no duty of care to take special measures by predicting the vehicle coming on the center or the left side of the road to go on the road to go on the center or the left side of the road. However, in case where the driver of a motor vehicle coming on the drinking road has observed the vehicle already proceeding on the center or the left side of the road to interfere with the course by an ombudsman, the driver of the motor vehicle is unable to take appropriate measures for preventing any collision with the driver of the motor vehicle due to any gross negligence, even though the driver of the motor vehicle stopped on the right side of the road or stopped on the side of the motor vehicle and then is unable to take appropriate measures for preventing collision with the driver of the motor vehicle resulting from the collision.

According to the records (e.g., a yellow survey document prepared by the judicial police council), when the vehicle driven by the defendant conflicts with the vehicle driven by the victim, the vehicle was almost stopped at the right edge of the road (the bottom is about 3 meters of the road) (it is connected to the moving trace to the right edge of the suspended vehicle). The vehicle goes beyond the right edge of the vehicle after the collision with the vehicle, and the right edge is coming to the right edge of the road, and the vehicle is turned to the right edge of the road at the time of the collision with the vehicle on the ground surface, and it cannot be found that the vehicle was driven to the right edge of the road at the time of the collision with the vehicle on the left edge of the road, and even if the vehicle was found to the right side of the road at the right edge of the road at the time of the collision with the vehicle on the left edge of the road, it cannot be said that the vehicle at the right edge of the road at the time of the collision with the vehicle on the right edge of the road at the time of the collision with the road on the right edge of the road.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant was negligent in failing to fulfill his duty of care as the driver of the motor vehicle for the same reason as otherwise stated in its opinion. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty of the driver of the motor vehicle, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)