Whether there is a duty of care to drive a motor vehicle in the opposite line that is driven by a motor vehicle driver beyond the center line (negative)

In general, in a case where a motor vehicle is traveling along another motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the other motor vehicle generally has the trust that the motor vehicle will drive the motor vehicle in compliance with its normal method. Therefore, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle in advance beyond its median line even if it comes to the front line, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da955 delivered on December 22, 1981

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellant No. 10

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na3149 delivered on February 6, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On October 21, 1983, when Nonparty 1, who had been employed by the Defendant and operated a new dieselel (vehicle registration number 1 omitted) new diesel, operated the said truck on the ground of its reasoning, Nonparty 1: (a) started to operate the said truck and start to the Chungcheongnamnam-si and opened the Gyeongnam-si, and (b) started to run it, at around 05:50 on the same day, the opposing line is different from that on the national highway set back in the 2nd line located in the Gyeongnam-gun National Road in the Gyeongnam-gun, and entered the said 2nd line beyond the central line, thereby causing the death of the said 1st class of the Defendant. Nonparty 1, who had driven the said 1st class of the said Defendant’s vehicle, had the above 2nd class of the accident, operated the said 100 meters after the accident site, and the Defendant did not take measures to prevent the above 5th class of the vehicle from running the said 2nd class of the accident, and did not take measures to prevent the above 50th class of the vehicle.

2. In a case where the driver of a motor vehicle overlaps with another motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the other motor vehicle generally has the trust that the other motor vehicle will operate the motor vehicle in compliance with its normal method. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the other motor vehicle is not obligated to drive the motor vehicle beyond its median line in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da955 delivered on December 22, 1981). Thus, according to the above decision, it is difficult to see that the monthly salary of the deceased non-party 2 driver was at the seat of the motor vehicle owned by the defendant of the above non-party 1 due to the collision between the deceased non-party 1 and the vehicle owned by the defendant of the above non-party 1 because the monthly salary of the non-party 2 driver was above the central line and the above non-party 1 driver's vehicle was at the seat of 50 meters. The above non-party 1 recognized that the monthly salary of the above non-party 2 driver was coming beyond its central line and did not take any action.

If a vehicle traveling at a speed of 50 km per hour (in accordance with the record, the salary-employment pedals are bound, and at a speed of 50 meters like the defendant vehicle), considered another vehicle at a point of 50 meters in the front direction, it is apparent that it would be flick between the two seconds or less, and therefore, it is difficult to expect the above non-party 1 to take the accident prevention measures as stated in its reasoning, and even if it was taken such measures, it is difficult to escape from this accident.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to driver's negligence in traffic accident or finding facts without evidence. Thus, this error constitutes a ground for reversal of the judgment under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the theory of appeal is justified.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge) No. 300,000,000,000,000,000