(a) The degree of voluntary obligation to the opposite vehicle that operates on the road along which a median line is installed, in respect of the opposite vehicle that is driven by the driver;

(b) The case holding that there was an error of incomplete hearing on the grounds of exemption from liability under the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

A. The other party's motor vehicle generally has the trust of operating the other party's motor vehicle by maintaining the other party's line in a normal way, and barring any special circumstance, the other party's motor vehicle has no duty of care to anticipate and drive the other party's vehicle beyond the central line.

B. In a case where Defendant 1 was the first instance court, on the ground that the driver under his control was without fault, the court should have deliberated on the existence of the structural defect and functional disorder of the corporate bus owned by the company in accordance with the requirements for exemption under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, depending on the case where the court exercised its right to ask for explanation, and accordingly, should have recognized the company’s liability without taking such measures. However, it is unlawful as misapprehending the legal principles on the driver’s negligence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the defense for exemption.

A. Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act; Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da618,619 Decided June 10, 1980, 80Da2547 Decided August 25, 1981, Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1258 Decided November 26, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 84Meu562 Decided December 24, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Fari Transportation Co., Ltd., Counsel Kim Jong-sik, Song-sik, Park Jong-dae, Park Jong-young, and Choi Jong-young

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na4607 delivered on March 10, 1986

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the point of accident of this case is Seoul and U.S., which was sealed by the defendant's office, and it was difficult to find out that the above point of accident is above 10 meters away from Seoul and U.S., and the above point of accident was above 10 meters away from Seoul, and it is hard to find that the above point of accident was above 20 meters away from the front side of the above road, and it was about 15 degrees away from Seoul, and the width is 3.45 meters away from the upper side of the road, and it was adjacent to the non-party 1's central road at the end of 2.1 meters away from the left side of the road because it was difficult to find out that the above point of accident was above 2 meters away from the above upper side of the road, and the vehicle was above 125cc away from the front side of the road, and the vehicle was above 60 kilometers away from the upper side of the road.

2. However, in a case where the driver of a vehicle running on the road along which a median line is installed overlaps with another vehicle running on the opposite direction, the other party's vehicle generally has the trust of operating the other party's vehicle in compliance with its normal method. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the other party's vehicle does not have the duty of care to expect and drive the other party's vehicle going beyond the median line and make it into its own line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da955, Dec. 22, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 73Da280, Jun. 12, 1973). The above legal principle is applied as it is, even under the road situation at the location of the accident location at which the accident occurred in this case.

Therefore, in the opposite direction to Nonparty 2, a driver of the bus driving the instant accident point, there is no duty of care to anticipate that automobiles, etc. are likely to drive along the center line near the center line while moving along the valley. According to the circumstances of the instant accident at the approval of the court below, the instant accident is one of the first straight lines where the center line Oral 1 is running so far as it is difficult to grasp the movement of the vehicle moving along the opposite direction. It is not operated within the center line but operated within the center line with the part where the otoal 1 is running across the center line, that is, the part of the otoal 2, which part of the otoal 1 is driving along the center line with the center line, and it is not caused by the negligence of Nonparty 2's operation of the above part of the above otoal 1, which occurred in the above part of the above otoal 2, because the above part of the otoal 1, which occurred in the middle of the above accident.

In the instant accident, unless it is deliberated and confirmed that the above non-party 2 had been negligent in the instant accident, unless it was deliberated and confirmed that the above non-party 2 had discovered or could have discovered the fact of running the bus near the central line or near the central line before passing through the accident point, the above non-party 2 could not be determined that there was negligence in the instant accident.

3. The defendant's defense against the above non-party 2, the first instance court, on the ground that the above non-party 2 was without fault in the accident. Thus, the court below should have deliberated on the existence of the structural defect and functional disorder of the bus owned by the defendant in accordance with the requirements for exemption under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, such as exercising the right to ask for explanation, and accordingly, it should have recognized the defendant's liability for failing to take such measures. The defendant's failure to take such measures is unlawful by misapprehending the legal principles on the driver's negligence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the defense for exemption. Such illegality constitutes the ground for reversal of the court below's judgment under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage among the part against which the Defendant lost shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)

A judge of the Supreme Court cannot sign and seal due to retirement.