The case holding that the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's liability for negligence in a traffic accident caused by the plaintiff's central crime does not conflict with the case law.

The case holding that the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's liability for negligence in a traffic accident caused by the plaintiff's central crime does not conflict with the case law.

Articles 750, 763, 396 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 89Na4991 delivered on May 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of a person who operates an asphalt road, the first line of which is the center line, along his own lane, is believed to operate along his own lane. Thus, the other vehicles (including Laos, etc.) coming from the opposite direction of his own lane do not have the duty of care to drive his own lane, as it is pointed out in the paper. However, since the operator is aware of the road status of the point where the accident occurred and the vehicle moving from the opposite direction is able to run along his own lane, it is difficult for the operator to be exempted from liability of negligence due to the occurrence of the accident if there are special circumstances, such as the situation where the accident vehicle moving from the opposite direction gets into the center line and had already been able to cope with the accident, and thus, the operator is not obliged to drive the vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu6373, Jun. 22, 190).

Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on macroscopic evidence, and found that the accident points of this case were in conflict with the above sub-soils and caused the accident to occur to the defendant 30 percent of the negligence in progress, even though the point of this case was installed with yellow central line, which has a large traffic volume of 60 kilometers a speed of 75 kilometers a speed of speed limit at the time of restriction. The defendant, while driving Poscop trucks with speed exceeding the speed of 75 kilometers a speed limit of speed limit, the driver's Poscopic copic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sck.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)