Whether there is negligence in the operation of the opposite vehicle and the operation of the opposite vehicle, which has been separated from the opposite vehicle due to the collision of the Obama.

If a passenger on the back of the Otoba is reduced on the road of the opposite vehicle beyond the central line on the wind that conflict with another vehicle before the O tobaba, the driver’s license of the opposite vehicle is not generally foreseeable, and even if he was at fault, it cannot be said that there was negligence.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

It shall be the Mugunghwa Transportation Corporation.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 30,08,842 won, 50,000 won per annum from June 1, 1983 to the sentencing day, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

Around 00 on June 11, 1983, Nonparty 1, a driver of a car number 1 omitted) and 8 tons car truck owned by the Defendant: Around 00, Nonparty 1, a driver of the above truck, drivened on the national highway at the entrance of the public school located in the Masan-si, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, for the Masan-si, who was driven by Nonparty 2 on the opposite line, was faced by Nonparty 2 while he loaded the truck after his own vehicle, and the plaintiff 1, who was on the after his vehicle, was on the front side of the truck drivened by Nonparty 1, who was on the front side of the truck driven by Nonparty 1, was on the front side of his own vehicle, did not have any dispute between the parties, and there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the description of evidence No. 1 (No. 1) without dispute, the plaintiff 2 and 3 were the parents of the plaintiff 1 and the parents of the plaintiff 14.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant who operates the above truck on his own behalf is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and therefore, the defendant asserts that the accident occurred because the non-party 2 did not secure the safety distance of other automobiles prior to his own land and took close close close to them, and only caused the accident by the non-party's unilateral negligence. The driver of the defendant truck did not neglect his duty of care in operation, and the defendant truck did not have any structural defect or functional obstacle at the time, and thus, the defendant should be exempted from liability.

Therefore, it is difficult to find out that the above 6th driver's license of the above 6th driver's license of the above 6th driver's license (excluding the part which is not believed to be part of the traffic accident report), 7, 8 (No. 1, 2) the driver's license of the above 6th driver's license of the above 6th driver's license of the above 6th driver's license on the front of the 6th driver's license without any dispute. The driver's license of the above 6th driver's license of the above 6th driver's license of the above 6th driver's license on the front of the 6th driver's license on the road (the same shall apply to the 3th driver's license of the above 6th driver's license on the front of the 6th driver's license on the ground that the 6th driver's license of the above 1st driver's license on the front of the 6th driver's license on the road.)

If so, the defendant is liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the plaintiff's objection claim is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Seo Jong-woo (Presiding Judge)