[1] Whether a driver of a motor vehicle who drives an expressway has a duty of care to anticipate the driver of the motor vehicle to drive the expressway without permission (negative with qualification)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the proximate causal relation between the driver's negligence and the accident caused the death by shocking a pedestrian who illegally crosses an expressway at night

[1] The driver of a motor vehicle driving on an expressway has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle while preparing for the driver to take measures, such as rapid stopping, in order to prevent a collision with pedestrians, in general, by predicting that there is a pedestrian crossinging the expressway. However, even if the driver caused an accident by shocking a pedestrian crossinging the expressway without permission, there was a circumstance in which the driver could anticipate the unauthorized crossing of pedestrians in advance at a reasonable distance, and accordingly, if the driver took measures, such as speeding, speeding, and speeding, etc. immediately, he/she could avoid a collision with the pedestrian, he/she may be recognized as a negligence by the driver of the motor vehicle, only if it

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the proximate causal relation between the driver's negligence and the accident caused the death by shocking a pedestrian who illegally crosses an expressway at night

[1] Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Do1484 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 706), Supreme Court Decision 96Da22525 delivered on October 15, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3390), Supreme Court Decision 98Da5135 delivered on April 28, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1496)

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 2000No167 delivered on May 25, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

1. On May 8, 199, the court below found the defendant guilty of the death of the victim at least 2:25 on the right side of the above vehicle and caused the death of the victim at least 119.8km from the front right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the Eup without any safe distance due to the rapid change of the two-lane course to overtake the express bus at right side of the road at about 120km, without any safe distance due to the driver's negligence in front of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the vehicle at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the vehicle at right time, without any rapid causal relation between the victim and the vehicle at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side of the road at right side.

2. A driver of a motor vehicle driving on an expressway has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle in preparation for and with the duty of care to take measures, such as rapid stopping, in order to prevent a collision with pedestrians, in general, by predicting that there is a pedestrian crossinging the expressway: Provided, That even if an accident has occurred due to a shock of pedestrians crossing the expressway without permission, there was a circumstance in which the driver could anticipate the unauthorized crossing of pedestrians in advance at a reasonable distance, and accordingly, if the driver took measures, such as speeding, urgent driving, etc., immediately and as a result, he/she could avoid a collision with the pedestrian, the driver of the motor vehicle may be found to be negligent (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da5135, Apr. 28, 1998).

In this case, the victim and the one driving on the right side of the road are moving along a two-lane to cross an expressway from the front side of the defendant's driver's vehicle immediately after the defendant's vehicle changes from a two-lane to a two-lane, and the defendant found the victim, etc. driving without permission as above and did not take measures to avoid shock. Thus, even if the defendant found that the victim, etc. traveling on the right side of the road without permission, it cannot be seen that the defendant could have predicted the crossing without permission of the victim, etc. from a considerable distance where it can avoid collision with the victim, etc. due to rapid operation, etc. ( even if the defendant discovered that the victim, etc. traveling on the road at a considerable distance from a considerable point, it cannot be seen that the defendant could not take measures to prevent collision with the victim, etc. without permission, so long as the victim, etc. drives on the right side of the road without permission, it cannot be seen that the defendant's vehicle is a road driving distance near the point of this case without permission, and it cannot be seen that the defendant's fault is a road.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that there was a proximate causal relationship between the Defendant’s negligence and the instant accident. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of care of the driver on an expressway, or on the proximate causal relationship between the negligence and the result of the accident, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)