[1] The meaning of the duty to secure the safety distance under Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which found the driver's negligence in securing a safe distance after he concealed the vehicle in front of which a sudden stop due to a collision with the mediand vehicle of the central line

[1] Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "if all vehicles follow after the vehicle travelling in the same direction, they shall secure the necessary distance to avoid any collision with the vehicle running ahead of it, if it stops suddenly." This includes not only the case where the vehicle running ahead of it stops by the power of the motor vehicle driving ahead of it, but also the case where it stops suddenly due to the operation other than the motor vehicle driving.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which found the driver's negligence of securing the safety distance after following the vehicle in front of which the driver stops suddenly due to the collision with the central line, without securing the safety distance

[1] Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da23590 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 907)

Park In-ok et al.

El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yu-gil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na11579 delivered on June 13, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 17 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "All vehicles follow after the vehicle running in the same direction, if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly, it shall secure the necessary distance to avoid collision with the vehicle ahead of it." This includes not only the case where the vehicle ahead of it stops by the vehicle ahead of it with the vehicle ahead of it, but also the case where it stops suddenly due to any operation other than the motive (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da23590 delivered on February 9, 196).

In the same purport, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of immunity by recognizing and judging that the negligence, which did not observe the safety distance with the vehicle in front, was caused by the accident in the first place due to the collision with the vehicle in front, while driving the vehicle in front at the time of the accident in front of the road, without securing the safety distance to avoid the collision with the vehicle in front of the accident in preparation for the case where the vehicle in front of the accident in front of the vehicle in front at the time of the accident in front of the vehicle in front of the road, and the accident in this case occurred due to the sudden stop on the first place due to the collision with the vehicle in front of the non-party 2. There is no reason to argue that the defendant's defense of immunity is justified by recognizing and judging that the non-party 1's failure to observe the safety distance with the vehicle in front of the accident in this case was the cause of the accident in front of the accident in this case.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The lower court’s rejection of Nonparty 1’s assertion that there was no proximate causal relation between Non-Party 1 and the death of the deceased, because Non-Party 1’s death of the accident in this case caused by the collision with the above truck. It cannot be said that there was no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, or incomplete deliberation. There is no reason to discuss.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)