Even if an accident occurred while driving on an expressway at a minimum speed of 40 kilometers per hour on the expressway, the driver's negligence is deemed to have been committed on the expressway, and thus, the driver's negligence is illegal.

후속차가 야간에 시속 80킬로미터로 전조등을 끈 채 전등이 켜진 터널을 통과한 직후 전조등을 뒤늦게 켠 관계로, 시속 약 25킬로미터로 앞서 가던 카고트럭을 전방 10 내지 15미터 지점에서 발견하고 급제동하였으나 미치지 못하고 추돌한 사고가 발생한 경우, 위 사고지점이 터널을 통과한 직후의 오르막의 우회전 커브길이라면 위 트럭의 저속운행에는 상당한 이유가 있다 할 것이므로 트럭운전사에게 위 사고발생에 관하여 어떠한 과실이 있다고 볼 수 없다.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Korea Automobile Insurance Corporation

Tae Young Transportation Corporation

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,198,370 won with 5% per annum from June 13, 1987 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution judgment

On February 27, 1986. 22:40, Nonparty 1: (a) operated one ton truck of 1 ton on its own (vehicle number omitted); (b) on the road immediately after passing through 84.3 kilometers 4 on the Dog-gun-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; (c) on the front part of the above 11 ton truck (vehicle number omitted) operated by Nonparty 2 on the road at Daegu-si; (d) on the 10th day of the above 6th day of the above 6th day of the above 198; (e) on the 10th day of the above 6th day of the above 6th day of the 198th day of the above 6th day of the 196th day of the death; (e) on the 19th day of the above 6th day of the 196th day of the death of Nonparty 4, his wife; (e) on the 10th day of the above 19th day of the above 8th day of the death.

The plaintiff, as a driver driving on an expressway immediately after the point of accident passes through the tunnel, has a duty to observe 40 kilometers per hour, which is the minimum speed of 20 kilometers per hour so as not to obstruct the front and rear traffic vehicles, despite the fact that the non-party 2 violated this duty and the non-party 1's negligence, it is reasonable to view that the rate of 50,198,370 won in proportion to the above damages paid by the plaintiff is 30,00 won in subrogation of the non-party 2. Thus, even if the non-party 1's evidence No. 1,2 (each judgment), the non-party 5's evidence No. 1, the non-party 2's testimony No. 1, the non-party 5's testimony No. 4, the non-party 2's testimony No. 1, the non-party 8's explanation No. 1, the non-party 2's explanation No. 8's explanation of the above danger No. 1, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case premised on the negligence against the non-party 2 is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Cho Soo-tae (Presiding Judge)