Degree of duty of care of drivers of vehicles driving in areas where the median line of yellow is installed;

A person who operates a vehicle with his own vehicle in a zone in which overtaking is prohibited due to the installation of a yellow median line, is not obliged to operate the vehicle in accordance with his own vehicle in the opposite direction, and it is predicted that the vehicle is the original by breaking the center line between the vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

1 other than a lake passenger transportation corporation

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to plaintiffs 13,152,586 won, 12,152,586 won to plaintiffs 2, and 8,135,057 won to plaintiffs 3, and 5% interest per annum from October 2, 1982 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

On October 1, 1982, the fact that the Defendant, who was employed as the driver by the Defendant, was driving a city bus (vehicle number omitted) owned by the Defendant Company on October 1, 1982, and was driving on the part of the Defendant at the front side of the city bank in Seoul at around 17:00 on the day from the front side of the Pyeongtaek-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul at around 135, and caused the death of the deceased Nonparty 1, who was driving on the opposite side, does not dispute between the parties.

The plaintiffs' representative, who was the driver of the above-mentioned city bus, is negligent in breaking the upper end of the above-mentioned bus with the driver of the above-mentioned bus and thus, the defendant company is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for all damages due to the above-mentioned accident under the conditions as prescribed by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. The accident of this case is about 3 (traffic accident report), 4, 6 (Examination of Facts), and 8, 9 (Saveve statement about Non-party 2), and 1-2 (Save statement about Non-party 2), and 3-2 (Save statement about Non-party 2) of this case's testimony about the front end of the above-mentioned bus at the end of the above-mentioned bus stop, because it is difficult for the defendant to find out the above-mentioned bus's front end at the end of the above-mentioned bus stop, and it is also difficult for the defendant to use the front end of the bus at the end of the above time.

According to the above facts, there is a yellow median line installed, and the defendant, who was proceeding with his own bus in a zone where the overtaking is prohibited, had no duty of care to anticipate that the above Oralone is the main line, enter the main line, and operate the bus with the original bus. Thus, the defendant cannot be said to be negligent in the accident of this case, and it is caused by negligence of over-speed, the center bed, etc., as seen earlier by the deceased non-party 1.

Therefore, the defendant company and the driver did not neglect to pay attention to the operation of automobiles and caused the accident in this case's negligence to the victim. According to each of the above evidences, the defendant company is not liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act since it is acknowledged that there is no defect in the structure or functional impairment of the automobile of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge his intention or negligence even in the defendant, so the defendant is also not liable for damages. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant is liable for damages for the accident of this case is no longer reasonable, and it is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)