1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added or emphasized the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court as set forth in paragraph (2), and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of immunity

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff driven Oral Sea, and thus, it was impossible to avoid the collision with the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff was normally driven without drinking.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident B was negligent.

B. Determination 1) Generally, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road along which a median line is marked along his/her own lane is trusting to keep his/her lane. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the other motor vehicle at the right edge of two lanes or road in advance, and is not obliged to drive the other motor vehicle at the right edge of the central line. Furthermore, even if the other motor vehicle has violated traffic regulations such as driving beyond a limited speed, if the driver did not drive the other motor vehicle, it can be deemed that the operation of the other motor vehicle was done by negligence only when he/she was under the circumstance that the driver could avoid collision as soon as he/she did not drive the other motor vehicle immediately after discovering the median line was discovered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da67464, Feb. 9, 201).