The duty of care of the driver to whom the left side part of the vehicle is collisioned by the vehicle following the next vehicle;

A vehicle running along a three-lane line among the four-lanes, along the same direction as the first lane, has entered the third-lanes of the vehicle A, and has entered the third-lanes, and has lost its center by a sudden shock of the left side of the vehicle, and has been pushed down by a sudden shock of the part above the right side of the vehicle B, and has come to conflict with the damaged vehicle under a stop at a point of about 30 meters away from the right side, and the skid mark of the vehicle A was 15 meters away by the right side, a driver of the vehicle A has a duty of care and duty of care to stop the vehicle promptly to prevent another traffic accident, as long as his vehicle is shocked by the vehicle B from the right side.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1328 delivered on August 23, 1983 (Gong1983, 1453), Supreme Court Decision 85Do784 delivered on June 25, 1985 (Gong1985, 1090), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1746 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong191, 2568)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Incheon, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Newly Inserted by Act No. 1014, Dec. 1, 201>

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na15496 delivered on September 25, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the non-party's negligence on April 12, 196, after the non-party's operation of the above-mentioned EXE at the point of 24:0, it was found that the non-party's operation of the above EXE at the point of 1996 and the non-party's operation of the above EXE at the point of 2:0, the non-party's operation of the above EXE at the point of 3:0, the non-party's operation of the above EXE at the point of 1:0, the non-party's operation of the above EXE at the point of 3:0,000 if the non-party's operation of the above EXE is not caused by the non-party's accident, and the non-party's operation of the EXE at the point of 1:5,000 if it was found that the non-party's operation of the above EXE is not caused by the non-party's departure.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

As recognized by the court below, the accident of this case, like the above x-cell vehicle, which runs along the three-lanes of the above x-cell vehicle among four-lanes, is driven by one lane in the same direction, and has entered the three-lanes of the above x-cell vehicle, and has lost its center by sudden shocking the upper end part of the vehicle by the front part of the above x-cell vehicle. If the distance from the point of the first collision to the point of the accident of this case is 30 meters on the road, and the above x-cell driver's x-cell vehicle's x-cell vehicle's x-ray is 15 meters with its right-hand wheels, the above x-cell vehicle's driver's above x-ray cannot be seen as taking prompt measures to stop the above x-ray vehicle's vehicle's x-ray to prevent another vehicle from being pushed by the above x-ray driver's right-hand side of the above x-ray.

Nevertheless, without further proceeding to examine the above point, the court below determined that the accident in this case occurred due to negligence in which the non-party failed to properly operate the steering gear and the steering gear at the time of expulsion. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the driver's negligence in the traffic accident and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)