[1] When the preceding vehicle stops on an expressway or exclusive road due to an accident, etc., a drilling accident occurred by the latter vehicle. In the event that the preceding vehicle stops on a driver’s negligence, whether there exists a causal relationship between the above negligence and the damage caused by the latter (affirmative in principle)

[2] In a case where a preceding vehicle driving on an expressway at night finds a parked vehicle due to a traffic accident in the front section, and operates the vehicle on the front section, but the preceding vehicle stops on the ice road, while leaving the 20 to 30 meters away from the place where the preceding vehicle stopped at the place where the preceding vehicle stopped and stopped on the first lane, and the latter vehicle driving behind the vehicle after the 10 seconds away from it, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which held that even if there is sufficient room to view that there was a driver's negligence in the stopping of the preceding vehicle, the vehicle was caused by the driver's negligence of the latter vehicle.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Da64925 Decided December 10, 2009 (Gong2010Sang, 117) Supreme Court Decision 201Da110692 Decided March 29, 2012

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Jeongse, Attorney Gi-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Freight Trucking Federation (Law Firm Thai, Attorneys Kim Jae-in, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na24179 Decided November 30, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the event that a towing accident occurred by a motor vehicle following the motor vehicle that the preceding motor vehicle stops on the main lane due to an accident, etc. on the expressway or the motorway, even though the preceding motor vehicle driver could not take safety measures, such as moving the motor vehicle to a safe place or setting up a sign, etc. for reasons such as insufficient time or injury after stopping, if the driver was negligent in having the motor vehicle stopped on the main lane due to the preceding accident, etc., it shall be deemed that there is a causal relation as to the damage caused by the latter accident, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da64925, Dec. 10, 2009; 201Da10692, Mar. 29, 2012).

2. 원심은 채용한 증거에 의하여 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정하고 나아가 다음과 같이 판단하여 피고 차량 운전자의 과실과 이 사건 사고 사이의 인과관계를 인정하지 않았다. 즉 피고 차량이 조향 및 제동장치를 제대로 조작하지 못한 채 미끄러져 중앙분리대를 들이받고 정차하게 되었다고 하더라도, 그 뒤에 진행하던 트럭은 이를 피해 2차로로 차선을 변경하여 천천히 피고 차량의 옆을 지나갔고, 그 시점에서 트럭 뒤에 진행하던 원고 차량이 피고 차량을 추돌한 이 사건 사고가 발생한 것인 점을 감안하면, 피고 차량 정차 과정에서의 위험성은 이 사건 사고와 연결된 바 없다. 피고 차량이 정차한 후 약 10초 만에 원고 차량이 피고 차량의 후미를 정면으로 들이받았으므로 피고 차량의 운전자가 안전조치를 할 시간적 여유가 없었던 반면, 그때 전방에 있었던 다른 교통사고로 인하여 차량들이 비상등을 켠 채 서행하고 있었고, 피고 차량은 비상등을 켠 채 후미에 식별장치를 장착하고 있었으며 그곳은 직선 내리막길로서 시야에 장애가 없었으므로, 원고 차량의 운전자가 조금이라도 전방을 주시하였다면 제동거리 밖에서 피고 차량의 존재를 쉽게 알아차릴 수 있었다. 그런데도 원고 차량 운전자는 전혀 조향장치를 조작하지 않고 스키드 마크도 남기지 않은 채 그대로 피고 차량의 후미를 정면으로 강하게 들이받았으므로, 이 사건 사고는 전적으로 전방주시의무를 극도로 태만히 하여 위와 같이 추돌을 일으킨 원고 차량 운전자의 과실로 인하여 발생한 것이다.

3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence employed by the court below, the driver of the defendant vehicle driving on an expressway at night discovered the occurrence of a traffic accident and the failure of the driver to properly operate the steering and steering system on the expressway, leaving the vehicle on the ice, leaving the vehicle at the center of the 20 to 30 meters away from the place where the previous vehicle stopped at the ice, and stopped on the one-lane, and the plaintiff's vehicle following the 10 seconds away from the vehicle. The accident of this case occurred. In light of these circumstances, it is sufficient to see that the driver's act of stopping at the above point is not solely due to the traffic accident, but the driver's negligence caused by the failure to properly operate the steering and operating system, and thus, the driver's fault and the occurrence of the accident caused by the accident, and the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the accident, barring any special circumstances, should not be considered as the occurrence of the accident between the plaintiff and the driver of the vehicle in front of the safety measures.

Ultimately, the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the negligence of the Defendant’s driver may be deemed to have caused the instant accident and the occurrence and expansion of the damages therefrom. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of proximate causal relation as to the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the tort, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is 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 Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)