1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that although the deceased's mistake was caused by the central line of the deceased, the defendant truck driven at a rapid speed without speed operation on the road at which the road expansion work is in progress, and failed to take any measures to detect and avoid the deceased's driver's vehicle, and neglected his/her duty of speed and front-down, such as stopping after a considerable distance after shocking. The fault ratio contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages is about 80%. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiffs an amount equivalent to the above fault ratio among the damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident was caused by the collapse of the center line of the deceased, and that the Defendant truck was running under speed of 50km or less per hour at the time of the accident, and that it was not possible to discover the deceased’s driver’s vehicle that intrudes on the central line of the road structure. Therefore, the Defendant’s truck did not have any negligence affecting the instant accident, and that the instant accident was caused solely by the mistake of the deceased, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim cannot be complied with.

B. Determination feet, in general, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road along which a median line is installed along his/her own lane is trusting that the motor vehicle from which he/she is traveling 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 has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by predicting the median line until the center is invaded.

In this case.