logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1990. 1. 12. 선고 89도1792 판결
[교통사고처리특례법위반,도로교통법위반][공1990.3.1(867),480]
Main Issues

Whether it can be seen as the operation by the vehicle line to go beyond the center line of yellow ray while looking at the opposite line to avoid an obstacle (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

In the case of the center line marked with yellow point line, it is necessary to pass beyond the center line as the objective conditions at the time of operation should damage obstacles due to the nature of the vehicle line, and the passing beyond the center line is deemed to constitute the operation according to the vehicle line under Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and attached Table 1-6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 86Do2597 Decided July 7, 1987

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu District Court Decision 88No1835 delivered on June 8, 1989

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 10(1)6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 601(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the central line is divided into yellow solid lines, yellow doer lines, yellow doer lines, and yellow doer lines. In the case of the central line marked with yellow doer lines, the central line is deemed to fall under the operation following the lane under Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act if it is necessary to pass beyond the central line because the objective conditions at the time of operation should damage obstacles due to the nature of the vehicle line, and if it goes beyond the central line, it is necessary to pay attention to the traffic of the opposite direction, and if it goes beyond the central line, it is without merit in the above determination of the court below to find that there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)

arrow