The case reversing the decision of the court below which found the error of incomplete hearing in finding an error in the omission of a vehicle owner who did not avoid any collision after finding an error of 50 kilometers in the 20-meter radius from the 30-meter oaks of the main line.

The case reversing the decision of the court below which found the error of incomplete hearing in finding an error in the omission of a vehicle owner who did not avoid any collision after finding an error of 50 kilometers in the 20-meter radius from the 30-meter oaks of the main line.

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

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 84No402 delivered on November 30, 1985

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below cited the judgment of the court of first instance, and found that the defendant, who is a driver of 2.5 metric truck, had 2.5 metric tons of another truck, drive the above truck on duty around October 30, 1983 and proceeded about about 50 kilometers in speed at the front of the training center for the e-mail-gun located in the front of the new e-mail, the new e-mail-gun, the reserve forces located in the front of the right to left the road at about 80 meters in front, caused the victim's dust (22 years old) to 125 cc away from the front of the new e-mail. In such case, the defendant, as the driver of the motor vehicle, should observe the above victim's movement, should take measures to prevent collision between the above victim's vehicle and the above e-mail by neglecting his duty of care at a long-term speed beyond 9 cc., but should continue to proceed with the above e-mail.

In short, the summary of the above fact is that it was about 80 meters from the front side to the left-hand turn turn through the Defendant’s driving of the truck in this case, which is the place where the accident occurred, and the speed of the truck drivened by the Defendant at the time was about 50 kilometers per hour, and it continued to proceed at the same speed, while the said victim continued to proceed with the Defendant’s vehicle line at the same speed, and it did not take a sudden measure but did not reach the accident in this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the facts cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the accident location of this case is that (1) the defendant found the right-hand truck from the defendant's running direction, and was a cell line before right-hand, (2) it was 80 meters prior to the fact that the defendant discovered the right-hand truck from the Defendant's running on the line at the time of 0 to 30 meters prior to the Defendant's driving time. (3) The speed of the truck driven by the defendant was 50 kilometers prior to the trial time. (4) The defendant stated that the speed of the accident was 80 kilometers prior to the trial at the time of the first instance court or the court of first instance, and that the defendant was 80 kilometers prior to the trial time of the accident, and that the defendant's driving distance was 80 kilometers prior to the trial time of the above case, and that the defendant was 80 kilometers prior to the trial time of the first instance court, and that the accident was 80 kilometers prior to the trial time of the defendant's driving.

However, the court below did not conduct such an investigation and examination and recognized that the defendant was negligent in the occurrence of the accident of this case without any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the driver's negligence in the traffic accident of this case, or by misunderstanding the facts without any evidence, and thereby pointing out the error that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)