Whether the other party to the motor vehicle is obliged to drive the motor vehicle beyond its central line, even if it is expected that the other party to the motor vehicle will enter the front line.

In general, in cases where a motor vehicle driver overlaps with another motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the other motor vehicle has the trust of operating the motor vehicle by keeping the motor vehicle line in normal ways. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle beyond the median line and even if it comes to its own line. However, in special circumstances where it is possible to anticipate that the other motor vehicle is to be operated in advance by abnormal methods, the above trust cannot be held, and the motor vehicle driver is obliged to take all measures to prevent accidents by making it difficult for the other motor vehicle driver to use it in a careful calculation even if it is operated by abnormal methods.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da955 Decided December 22, 1981, 85Da562 Decided December 24, 1985

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2745 delivered on February 11, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to paragraphs 1 and 3:

Examining the evidence cited by the judgment below in light of the records, it can be recognized that the accident in this case occurred through the same process and cause as the judgment of the court below is established, and it cannot be said that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding, and in comparison with the responsibilities of the parties involved in each accident who contributed to the above process and cause, the court below's decision that offsets the victim's negligence by 50 percent is reasonable, and therefore it is not reasonable to argue

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

In a case where a motor vehicle drivingr overlaps with another motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction, generally, the other motor vehicle has the trust of operating the motor vehicle in accordance with normal methods. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle beyond its median line and even if it comes to the front line of its own, barring special circumstances, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle in advance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da955, Dec. 22, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 85Da562, Dec. 24, 1985).

In this case, according to the judgment of the court below and the records, although the accident location, which Plaintiff 1 driven by the opposite direction of Defendant 1-owned truck at the time of the accident in this case, is a narrow road of 6.5 meters in width, the vehicle traffic has been frequent, which is a packaging road in front of the accident, and Defendant 2, the driver of Defendant 1 truck, was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to avoid collision with the above Orala, while neglecting the duty of care to avoid collision with the above Orala, even though he was aware of such circumstances, he was unable to avoid the above Orala, so in this case, Defendant 2 could have sufficiently predicted that Defendant 2 operated the above Orala in an abnormal manner, and therefore, Defendant 2 did not take measures to prevent collision with the above Oralabababababa, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles that found Defendant 2 as being negligent in operating the opposite to the above Oralababababababa.

Since the precedents cited as arguments differ from this case, it is not appropriate to this case. The arguments are groundless.

(3) On the other hand, the Defendants did not object to the entire portion of the judgment below against the Defendants, but did not submit the grounds of appeal as to the consolation money portion. Therefore, this part of the appeal is groundless

(4) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)