[1] The driver's duty of care required in the event that a motor vehicle on the flag line has already observed to sloping the central line

[2] The case holding that in a case where a collision occurs near the center line on the wind that affected the center line at a speed of about 126 km at a speed of about 62 meters at the speed of about 126 km, but the fluor vehicle attempted to return to the normal line again, the fluor vehicle does not fall under a case where it neglected to take preventive driving measures

[1] In general, a motor vehicle operator operating a road with a median line along his/her own median line is ordinarily reliance on the operation of the marina line. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle has no duty of care to take special measures by predicting the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle by breaking the center line of the road. However, in cases where the other motor vehicle already running along the opposite motor vehicle had been observed in advance by breaking the center line normally, the other motor vehicle is negligent in the occurrence of the collision between the other motor vehicle and its own motor vehicle only when it neglected to take appropriate defensive measures to prevent the occurrence of danger caused by the collision between the other motor vehicle and its own vehicle and its own side by sending or reducing warning signals using horns or headlights in preparation for interference with the course normally by continuing operation of the opposite motor vehicle as it is.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a collision occurs near the center line on the wind that affected the center line at a speed of about 126 km at about 62 meters per hour, but the fluor vehicle attempted to return to the normal line again, the fluoral vehicle does not fall under a case where it neglected to take protective driving measures

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Da2184 delivered on September 27, 1983 (Gong1983, 1574), Supreme Court Decision 92Da29245 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 565), Supreme Court Decision 94Da18003 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2618)

Homo et al. and 2 others

Maritime Insurance Corporation

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na2230 delivered on July 26, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In general, a motor vehicle operator operating a road with a central line along his/her own lane is trusting that the vehicle would be operated along his/her own lane. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle does not have a duty of care to take special measures by predicting the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle by breaking the central line of the road. However, in cases where the other motor vehicle already running along the opposite motor vehicle had been observed in advance by breaking the central line, if the other motor vehicle had observed in advance, it can be deemed that the other motor vehicle was negligent in the occurrence of the other motor vehicle and the accident caused by its own collision, even if it neglected to take appropriate defensive driving measures to prevent the occurrence of the danger caused by the collision between the other motor vehicle and its own lane and its own lane, by sending a warning signal using a horn or headlight in preparation for interference with the course while driving the motor vehicle normally and driving the motor vehicle on the right side of the road, even if it neglected to take such measures (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1904, Sept. 30, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1, who driven the truck at the time of Kim Dong-dong's 62 meters away from the front of about 62 meters of time, and found the scoo-f motor vehicle as soon as possible, and took preventive driving measures such as warning signal, speed reduction, stop, and so on. However, even if the non-party 1 discovered the above scoo-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun-k-f-fun-fun-fun-fun-fun, etc.

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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)