(a) The case holding that the truck owner's liability for damages is recognized with respect to an accident that conceals 15 tons of a dump truck parkeded on the second line of the straight line that stops at night;

(b) Reasons to be considered in offsetting negligence;

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles of offsetting negligence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, in the case where, in the case of paragraph (a) above, the Oraltobian driver, who driven the second line, was moving back to the left-hand turn in the zone where the left-hand turn is prohibited, calculated at 30 percent by leaving the said truck back to the lower court.

(a) The case recognizing the liability for damages as a person who operates an automobile for himself as prescribed by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, in case of an accident in which 15 tons of a dump truck parkeded on the second line of the straight-line road of the second straight line at night, is recognized as a person who drives the automobile for himself as prescribed by the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act;

B. In relation to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, if the victim was negligent, such grounds should be considered when determining the scope of the tortfeasor’s compensation. In relation to the calculation of the ratio of negligence between the two parties, the situation related to the occurrence of the accident should be sufficiently considered in light of the purport of the system that fairly sharing the damage.

C. In the case of paragraph (a) above, the case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles of comparative negligence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult for the driver to at least 30 percent of the negligence of the driver on the ground that the driver on the second line with the driver on the second line failed to verify the existence of the first line operation vehicle with the intention to enter the first line in order to turn to the left-hand turn in the zone where the left-hand turn is prohibited; and (b) it is difficult for the driver on the ground that the above truck was followed.

A. Article 3(b) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Articles 763 and 396(c) of the Civil Act are Article 183 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 71Da789 delivered on June 22, 1971 (Gong1984, 319)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Busan High Court Decision 90Na14843 delivered on April 9, 1991

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the plaintiff 1's property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court

All remaining appeals by the Defendant against Plaintiff 1 and appeals by Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for appeal:

The facts found by the court below are as follows. The non-party 1 left a dump truck of 15 tons as stated in the judgment of the defendant at the time of the judgment, which was illegal parking on the second line of the 2nd line of the 2nd line of the 2nd line in Ulsan-dong Pharmaceutical School located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-do. The plaintiff 1 was driving on around 23:40, and the plaintiff 1 did not discover the above truck and suffered injury on the part on which the truck was loaded. In addition, according to the records, the above 2nd line road was 3.4 meters wide, and the above non-party was parked on the right side of the 2nd line of the 2nd line at around 23:10 meters as of the date of the accident, and the remaining part of the 2nd line of the 2nd line (the defendant asserted that the 1th meter was left, but it is not clear on the record).

If the facts are the same, the accident in this case occurred in relation to the operation of the truck of the above non-party, and the defendant, the owner of the truck, is liable for damages as a person operating a motor vehicle for himself under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the judgment below to the same purport is justifiable. The ground for the argument in the lawsuit is that the road parked by the above non-party is the 4th straight line, which is the 4th straight line, in which the street lights are installed around the road, and there is no obstacle to the view. In addition, the fact that the plaintiff 1 returned to the right after changing the car line in order to turn back to the left at the time of the accident to the left-hand, and the accident occurred during the driving cannot be said to be the ground for offsetting the negligence of the above non-party in the accident in this case, and the precedent stating the theory of the lawsuit is different from the case in this case, and it is not appropriate to this case. The argument is without merit.

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

Based on the above facts in its recognition, the lower court erred by the Plaintiff 1, the injured party, while driving the Otoba, and did not well scam the front door while driving the Otoba, and such negligence also caused the occurrence of the instant accident, and recognized the ratio of the negligence as 30% and recognized the ratio of the negligence as 30%.

With respect to the occurrence or expansion of damages caused by illegal acts, such reasons should be considered when the victim was negligent, and when calculating the scope of compensation for damages of the perpetrator, in light of the purpose of the system of fair sharing of damages, all circumstances related to the accident should be considered.

The instant accident is an accident that the said Plaintiff was shocked on a truck under suspension, and it is difficult to accept that deeming the victim’s negligence as 30% as the victim’s negligence as indicated in its holding.

According to the records, the above plaintiff driving the second line with the intention of entering the first line to check whether or not the first line operation vehicle has been driven by the said plaintiff, while proceeding with the second line with the intention to enter the second line, it is recognized that the truck was driven by the second line on the road, and that alone, the above plaintiff's negligence cannot be said to be small even if the above plaintiff's negligence was caused by the accident. However, as alleged by the defendant, it is more so more so if there is no obstacle to the driver of the vehicle to see the front line because the street, etc. is explained around the scene of the accident as alleged by the defendant (However, since it is true that the vehicle was broken at the time of the record, it is not clear whether there was a visual obstacle).

In addition, the court below states that the parking of the above truck was illegal parking.The above accident site is an area where parking is prohibited, and therefore, parking is permitted, but it is not illegal parking due to a mistake in parking method (it is not clear that the point is not clear, and the court below did not conduct a proper deliberation on this point).

The court below’s calculation of the above Plaintiff’s negligence ratio without disclosing the above points alone cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on offsetting negligence, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The arguments are with merit.

3. The defendant filed an appeal against the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3, but the defendant did not present any grounds for appeal against this.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's loss of the plaintiff 1's property is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal against the plaintiff 1 and the appeal against the plaintiff 2 and 3 are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)