(a) The duty of care of the person driving a motor vehicle required when the other party motor vehicle on the flavoon line has already observed the course of breaking the central line;

B. Whether the excessive operation by the driver of a motor vehicle who gets into the central line constitutes negligence where the other motor vehicle in the troke line conflicts by entering the central line;

A. In general, a motor vehicle operator operating a road with a median line along his/her own median line is believed to be in operation in compliance with the median line. As such, the other motor vehicle has no duty of care to take special measures by anticipated the other motor vehicle to enter the median line of the road. However, in cases where the other motor vehicle having already been faced with the median line in an abnormal central line, it can be recognized that the other motor vehicle is negligent in the occurrence of an accident caused by the collision between the other motor vehicle and its own motor vehicle, only if the other motor vehicle neglected to take appropriate preventive measures to prevent the occurrence of a danger caused by the collision between the other motor vehicle and its own motor vehicle by sending or accelerating warning signals using a horn or headlight in preparation for interference with the course while continuing operation in an abnormal manner.

B. In a case where an accident occurred due to a collision between a passenger car that has entered the median line and a passenger car that has entered the median line on the road along which a median line is installed, the bus driver cannot immediately be found to have been negligent on the sole ground that the bus driver driven the bus in excess of the restricted speed. However, if the bus driver did not drive the bus, it can be deemed to have been negligent on the ground that the bus driver could immediately avoid a collision with stopping or reduction of speed on the road immediately after discovering the median line of the other passenger car if he did not drive the bus in excess of the restricted speed. However, it can be deemed to have been negligent.

Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act (Article 396)

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da4469 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992,1542) (Gong1542). Supreme Court Decision 90Da673 delivered on June 22, 1992 (Gong1992,1548) 92Do1137 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992,269) (Gong192,269) 92Da29245 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong193,565). B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da34650 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong193,580)

Long-term Exchange et al.

Dong Tourism Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na24911 delivered on February 17, 1994

Of the judgment below, the part against the defendant shall be reversed.

This part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 원심판결이 인용한 제1심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 원심공동피고 합자회사 경인렌트카 소유의 인천 1허2523호 승용차를 임차한 소외 1이 위 차를 운전하여 1992.9.10. 04:30경 영동고속도로 신갈기점 24.56km상을 신갈방면에서 강릉방면으로 진행하던 중에 전방주시를 게을리한 채 도로 중앙선을 차체의 1/3가량 침범하여 운전하다가 때마침 소외 2가이 운전하는 피고 소유의 경북 5바9534호 버스가 대향차선에서 시속 약 95km의 과속으로 마주 진행하여 오는 것을 뒤늦게 발견하고 자기차선으로 복귀하려고 하였으나 이미 때가 늦어 위 승용차의 앞 좌측부분으로 위 버스의 앞 범퍼 좌측부분을 충돌하여 그 충격으로 위 승용차의 뒷좌석에 타고 있던 소외 장경직을 사망에 이르게 한 사실을 인정한 다음, 피고의 면책항변에 대하여, 위 사고지점은 편도 1차선이기는 하나 위 버스가 진행하는 도로의 우측단으로는 자동차 1대가 통행가능한 정도의 포장된 갓길이 있고, 소외 2는은 위 승용차가 중앙선을 침범하여 운행하여 오는 것을 미리 발견하고도 전조등을 깜박여 경고하였을 뿐 우측으로 피행하는 등의 조치를 취하지 않고 그대로 운전하다가 이 사건 교통사고를 일으킨 것이라는 사실을 인정하고, 이에 터잡아 위 사고의 발생에는 소외 2의 운전상의 과실도 경합되어 있다고 판단하여 피고의 위 주장을 배척하였다.

2. Generally, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road along which a median line is marked along his/her own lane is believed to be in operation by maintaining the median line. As such, the other motor vehicle has no duty of care to take special measures by predicting that the other motor vehicle flows along the median line of the road. However, in cases where the other motor vehicle has already observed an abnormal course of running along the median line in advance, the other motor vehicle may be deemed to be negligent in the occurrence of the other motor vehicle’s collision, only if it neglected to take appropriate preventive driving measures to prevent the occurrence of danger caused by the collision between the other motor vehicle and its own lane by sending or acceleratinging warning signals using a horn or headlight in preparation for interference with the course by continuing operation of the motor vehicle at an abnormal level.

Therefore, as acknowledged by the court below, even if non-party 2, a driver of the above bus, appeared to have been present in advance at a point of 20 to 30 meters from the center line, it should be seen accurately as to whether non-party 2, as a driver of the above bus, had discovered the center line operation of the above bus in order to determine whether the above passenger vehicle could sufficiently take preventive driving measures as seen above. However, according to the records of this case, non-party 2, a bus driver, was investigated into a criminal case related to the traffic accident of this case, and he stated that the above vehicle was discovered at a point of 20 to 30 meters away from the center line (see, e.g., the record 128 pages), and its point was the second line, which can be seen as having been safe from the center line to the right-hand side of the above bus, as well as the point where the above two-party 2, as the point of view of the above two-party 2nd line, could not be seen as the point of the accident.

The court below found that Nonparty 2, a bus driver of the above bus, caused the collision by failing to take preventive driving measures, such as driving along the road on the side as above due to negligence. However, in this case, where the bus driving in the road where the median line is installed, such as the case, conflicts between the above bus driver and his own bus which entered the center line on the road where the median line is installed, it cannot be said that the driver of the above bus was at fault immediately on the ground that the driver of the above bus driven the bus above at a speed exceeding the speed limit. However, even if it was found that the driver of the above bus could immediately avoid the collision with the central bus driver of the above bus at the time of the above speed of 20 meters, it cannot be said that the driver of the above bus, as the driver of the above bus, could not be seen that the driver of the above bus was at the speed of 10 km or speed of the above bus, and the driver of the above bus at the speed of 20 km and the driver of the above bus at the speed of 10 km or speed of the above.

Therefore, the court below should have clearly examined whether Nonparty 2, who driven a bus owned by the defendant, was found at a certain location in the center line of the other party's vehicle, and then determined whether he could sufficiently cope with the accident at the time of the accident in this case, and whether he could sufficiently prevent the occurrence of the above accident if he had driven a bus in compliance with the speed limit. However, the court below erred in the judgment on the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle that rejected the defendant's defense for the exemption of liability only with the above facts recognized as above. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part against the defendant among the original judgment is reversed, and this part of 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)