(a) Whether there is a fault of a driver of Oral bomb operated adjacent to the central line on the national highways of the second line in which yellow solid lines are installed; and

B. In the case of a collision between a passenger car and a car driving on the road set forth in the above Section A and a car driving on the opposite line in order to avoid this, the driver's negligence of the said driver is found in the case of a collision between a car driving on the opposite line and a car driving on the opposite line.

A. In a case where a collision occurs between the Otoba, which was driven by the opposite line, while a driver of Obaba in the vicinity of the median line, in order to overtake the preceding vehicle on the national highways of the second line in which the yellow-line line is installed, it is difficult to deem that the driver of Obaba was at fault, on the sole basis of the fact that he operated the Obaba in the vicinity of the median line. However, even though he was at fault to find in advance the automobiles beyond the median line and to be capable of avoiding it, he did not take appropriate measures for avoidance

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, if a collision occurs with a passenger car which inevitably enters the opposite line in order to avoid the occurrence of the car beyond the median line, it is difficult to see that the collision point is within the passenger car driving line and is negligent on the part of the driver.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da9100 decided Jan. 11, 1991 (Gong1990, 1575) Decision 90Da20077 decided Apr. 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 723) (Gong1991, 1496)

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and four others

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na42277 delivered on January 31, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, upon citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged that the above non-party's driver's (vehicle registration number omitted) driving of a sea-line car owned by the court of first instance and driving it on his own, and driving it on behalf of the non-party to the above non-party for the death during the transmission of the vehicle, and driving it on behalf of the deceased under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and driving it on the national highway of Daejeon and shuttle-down with the main line, which is set up at the center of the yellow-ray line, is prohibited from overtaking because it was installed on the public road in front of the fraud 1-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do., the court below determined that the above non-party's failure to pay attention to the traffic situation of the non-party's vehicle constitutes an accident involving the death of the deceased and all damages caused by the plaintiff's family relation, and that it did not go beyond the central road of this case.

2. However, the above fact at the time of the original judgment alone does not clearly indicate whether the point where the vehicle owned by the Defendant was in conflict with the victim's Otoba is in conflict with the victim's Otoba, that is, the victim's Otoba-ray, or in the vehicle in line with the Defendant's Oba-ray. If the victim's Oba-ray is in line, it is difficult to view the victim's fault merely because it was caused by the victim's fault by considering that the vehicle owned by the Defendant was the situation where the collision occurred with the prior vehicle, as the time of the original judgment,

However, if the victim did not take appropriate action despite having discovered in advance the vehicle owned by the Defendant beyond the central line as above, it would also be negligent for the victim. However, it is not clear whether the victim could have discovered in advance the central course of the vehicle owned by the Defendant.

On the other hand, the court below explained that the victim entered the vehicle owned by the defendant, which is beyond the central line, caused the accident of this case by finding and avoiding it, and it appears that the point of collision was explained as if the collision was inside the vehicle owned by the defendant. However, if the victim Orala, who was operating the vehicle, was in the process of operating the vehicle, but it was a conflict with the vehicle owned by the defendant that inevitably went beyond the central line and returned to the opposite line to the opposite line in order to avoid this, it is difficult to view that the conflict point is difficult to deem that the victim was negligent on the part of the vehicle owned by the defendant. Thus, the fact at the time of the original trial alone alone is not clear whether there is negligence by the victim.

Although the court below should have deliberated and judged whether there was a fault between the conflict point and the two parties by taking into account the above points, the court below's decision without any name is an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by the incomplete hearing and the lack of reasons.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)