The case holding that it does not constitute a breach of duty of care to prevent a driver who has tested at a 15-meter radius from 15 meters ago the vehicle which intrudes on the central line.

If a bus driver who was driven at a speed of 40 kilometers a speed of 15 meters finds that the other party Obaba at a speed of about 60-70 kilometers a speed other than that of the city, he cannot be criticized that he neglected to perform his duty of care as a driver on the ground that he was extremely doubtful that he could wear a horn to the above Obaba driver, even though he was sounding the horn.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 84No234 delivered on April 3, 1985

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment below rejected the defendant's allegation that the above bus was operated on October 16, 1983, 20 :20 :20 m3, and the above bus was driven from the west- Eup to the west-west speed of about 40 km, and the victim (26 years old) passed on the national highway in front of the Yanananan-si, Yan-si, the opposite line at the time was under the influence of alcohol, and it was 15 meters earlier before the center line, and it was hard to see that the road operated by the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and it was connected to the above 3-meter width of the 5-meter width and the 20-meter width of the above bus, and thus, the defendant did not have any other duty of care to prevent the defendant from driving the above bus from spreading, despite his intention to reduce the speed of the vehicle engaged in the driving duty, and the defendant did not have any other duty of care to avoid the accident.

2. According to the statement in the face 14 (Before the first trial of the first instance) of the record, the court below's decision to reject the testimony of the road driving on October 16, 1983 by asserting that it was impossible for the victim to drive the road on the right-hand side without considering the fact that the truck was parked on the right-hand side of the road before the first trial of the first instance, and that the defendant also stated that the truck was parked on the right-hand side of the road at the first instance trial of the first instance, 7Na5415, without considering the fact that the truck was parked on the right-hand side of the road at the time of the first instance trial of the first instance, and that it was not possible for the victim to drive the road on the right-hand side without considering the fact that the defendant's testimony of the road driving on the right-hand side of the road at the time of the first instance trial of the first instance (see, e.g., the court below's decision to dismiss the witness's testimony by the second instance court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)