A. Whether yellow do not fall under the "central line" under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

B. The meaning of "central line intrusion" as stipulated in the above Article

(c) Criteria for determining whether or not a motor vehicle has been operated beyond the center line which is a yellow point line, which is prescribed in the above Article;

A. According to the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act and Article 10(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, it is defined as one kind of the central line for yellow-line leading. Thus, it falls under the "central line of a road on which a lane under the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is installed."

B. The phrase “influence” means the case where the center line of a road where a lane as defined in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is installed is not the case where the point of occurrence of traffic accidents takes place beyond the center line, but the case where a traffic accident occurred due to the continuous operation of a brut by overcing the center line, or even if it was not continuous operation of a brut, the case where a traffic accident occurred due to the continuous operation of a brut line, even though there is no unavoidable reason.

C. In the case of the yellow line, it is reasonable to interpret that the operation beyond the median line of the road over the median line without giving due attention to the traffic in the opposite direction, such as that the objective condition at the time of operation should damage obstacles due to the nature of the bus line should be considered to fall under the operation of the bus line under Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act. However, the operation beyond the median line without giving due attention to the traffic of the opposite direction constitutes a case where the center line of the road where the lane is installed in violation of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Traffic of the other direction constitutes a case where the center line of the road where the lane is installed is

(a) Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 10(1)(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 85No418 delivered on September 26, 1986

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 채택한 증거들을 종합하여 이 사건 사고는 피고인이 1985.4.5. 00:05경 포니 영업용택시를 운전하여 원심판시 편도 1차선의 노상을 진행함에 있어서 당시 진행방향 전방에 번호불상의 개인택시가 정차하고 있어 이를 피해가기 위하여 황색점선의 중앙선을 넘어서 진행할 즈음 때마침 피해자가 오토바이를 운전하고 반대방향에서 진행하여 오다가 피고인의 택시를 발견하고 당황하여 오토바이의 핸들을 좌로꺽어 피고인의 차선으로 진입함과 동시에 피고인도 위 오토바이와의 충돌을 피하기 위하여 다시 자신의 차선으로 들어감으로써 피고인의 진행차선 위에서 위 택시의 우측 범퍼부분으로 위 오토바이를 들이받아 일어난 사실을 인정한 다음, 도로교통법시행규칙 제10조 제1항 별표1의 6 노면표지 제601호 중앙선 표시에 의하면 중앙선중 황색점선은 반대방향의 교통에 주의하면서 도로 양측으로 넘어갈 수 있음을 표시하는 것임에 비추어 피고인이 위 황색점선을 넘어 반대차선으로 진행했던 것을 교통사고처리특례법 제3조 제2호 전단 의 " 도로교통법제13조 제2항 ( 1984.8.4 개정되기 전에는 제11조의2 제2항 임, 원심은 위 개정되기 전의 조항을 인용하고 있으나 잘못된 것임)의 규정에 위반하여 차선이설치된 도로의 중앙선을 침범하였을 때"에 해당한다고 할 수 없다고 판단하고 있다.

Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "motor vehicles and horses shall pass along the lane except as otherwise provided by this Act or any order issued under this Act on the road along which the lane is marked: Provided, That when the Mayor/Do Governor separately designates the traffic method, they shall pass as designated by the Mayor/Do Governor." According to the central line marking No. 601 of the attached Table 10 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the central line is divided into yellow solid lines, yellow domin lines, yellow domin lines, yellow domin lines, and yellow domin lines. Among them, the yellow solid lines indicate that the motor vehicle cannot go beyond the limit and indicate that the yellow do not go beyond the limit of the road along the opposite direction.

According to the above provisions, since the line is defined as one kind of yellow point leading vessel, it falls under the "central line" of the road on which the lane under the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is installed, and if the median line is the center line of the road on which the lane under the above provision is installed, it does not refer to all cases where traffic accidents occur beyond the center line, but it does not mean the case where traffic accidents occur due to continuous sed operation of the center line, even though it is inevitable without any reason, it does not go beyond the center line, and it does not go beyond the "central line" under the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because it is not necessary to protect the traffic accidents in light of the legislative intent of the Road Traffic Accidents Act, and it does not constitute the "central direction of the 2nd order of the 3rd order of the 1st order of the 2nd order of the 3rd order of the 2nd order of the traffic accident.

If the defendant stops in the front direction of the running of the defendant's taxi and the defendant proceeds beyond the median line of the yellow ray to cause damage, it is an objective circumstance at the time of operation and the necessity beyond the median line was created. In this case, the issue of whether the defendant has paid due attention to traffic in the opposite direction in the middle of the yellow ray should be determined whether or not the provisions of the above special law are applied.

Despite the above opinion, the court below held that the defendant's act of proceeding with the opposite line beyond the yellow do not constitute "when the center line of the road where the opposite line was installed in violation of the provisions of Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act" in Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which led to the violation of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and the provisions of the Road Traffic Act which led to the error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, in light of the legal principles of the above special cases and the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)