[1] Requirements for the application of the principle of trust in traffic accidents

[2] The case holding that a driver of a motor vehicle operating a four-lane road has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by predicting that the driver of a motor vehicle who drives the four-lane road will drive the motor vehicle without going through and bypassing the motor vehicle's right side on the road of the three-lane road

[1] In the occurrence of a traffic accident, in a case where it is reasonable to believe that there is no abnormal behavior in light of the overall circumstances at the time when the abnormal behavior such as traffic offense by the victim or by a third party is opened, the responsibility of the public operator or the driver of the harmful vehicle shall be denied unless there is no traffic offense which caused the accident on the part of the perpetrator.

[2] The case holding that a driver of a motor vehicle operating a four-lane road has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by predicting that the driver of a motor vehicle who drives the four-lane road will drive the motor vehicle without going through and bypassing the right side of the three-lane road, to the right side of the road just cut off the four-lane road and slow down the one-lane road.

[1] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Da1130 decided Oct. 11, 1988 (Gong1988, 1402) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da35894 decided Feb. 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 683)

Tran Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Baum General Law Office, Attorney Bail-won, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 99Na5377 delivered on February 3, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the occurrence of a traffic accident, it is reasonable to believe that such abnormal behavior such as traffic offense by a victim or a third party is not available in light of the overall circumstances at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident, unless there is a traffic offense which caused the accident on the part of the perpetrator, the responsibility of the operator, common user, or driver of the vehicle for the damage is denied (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1130, Oct. 11, 1988). The driver of the vehicle operating on the road is usually trusted that the other vehicle is able to keep the vehicle normally and continue the vehicle while maintaining the vehicle. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle operating the first line on the fourth line of the road is not obliged to pay a duty of care to drive the vehicle by predicting that the driver of the vehicle driving the fourth line of the fourth line of the vehicle directly road along the right-hand side and moving the fourth line of the vehicle by the first line of the vehicle without bypassing it on the road (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da3894, Feb. 10, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and found that the non-party, the insured of the plaintiff, would drive the defendant's vehicle, which is located at the fourth lane of the four-lane road, bypassing it from the fourth lane to the white square, and thereafter, it cannot avoid a collision with the Oral Sea, even if the Oral Sea is discovered that the Oral Sea continued to proceed to the fourth lane, and even if the Oral Sea was located at the fourth lane of the four-lane road, if the Oral Sea is located at the fourth lane of the four-lane road, it would be possible to avoid a collision with the above Oral Sea, and if the non-party, who operated the steering gear or immediately reduced or operated it, operated the above fourth-lane road without any evidence, the court below determined that the accident of this case would proceed to the fourth-lane road without fault of the non-party's vehicle bypassing it from the said three-lane road.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are justified in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. There is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)