In order to avoid vehicles that enter the first line while driving along the second line of the road, it shall be determined whether the driver of the first line of the vehicle driving beyond the center line on the left side is negligent (negative)

The driver of a vehicle driving on the first line of a road cannot expect that the vehicle operating on the second line will enter the first line without signal by hand, direction indicator, or light as provided in Article 33(1) of the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, if the vehicle on the second line exceeds the center line on the left-hand side in order to avoid the entry into the first line on the second line, there is no negligence on the said vehicle.

Article 33 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 84No2631 delivered on February 26, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 33(1) of the Road Traffic Act, when the driver of any motor vehicle intends to change the course while driving the motor vehicle in the same direction, he/she shall make a signal with his/her hand, direction indicator or light until the act is completed. As seen in the record, if the motor vehicle operated by the defendant at the court below where the driver of any motor vehicle is driving a call taxi on the first line without signal with the direction direction for the first line entry as set forth above, the defendant cannot expect the first line entry of the motor vehicle, so it cannot be said that he/she has a duty to take measures to rapidly stop the motor vehicle by predicting his/her first line entry even in such cases, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the defendant beyond the upper left line in order to avoid the above truck entering the first line on his/her own, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

2. In addition, when the driver intentionally or negligently intrudes the central line under Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents means the time when the driver intrudes the central line by intention or negligence, and it does not constitute an emergency measure to avoid a collision with the vehicle in front of which the defendant directly enters, and thus, it does not constitute a case of beyond the central line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do193, Mar. 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Do2923, Jun. 11, 1985). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that made the same purport is just, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all of the arguments are dismissed for lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)