[1] The duty of care of the driver of a motor vehicle operating a road with a median line along his/her own lane

[2] The case holding that there is no negligence on the part of the driver on the opposite direction on the part of the driver on the ground that the driver operated the first line road along which the crosswalk was installed in the front direction in the condition of the main stream above the statutory speed due to blood alcohol concentration

[1] A motor vehicle driver who operates a road along which a median line is installed along his/her own bus line is generally aware that the motor vehicle coming from a marina line is in compliance with his/her own bus line. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to pay a duty of care to expect the other motor vehicle to drive the motor vehicle even when she intrudes into the median line.

[2] The case holding that there was no negligence on the driver on the part of the driver on the part of the collision with the Ototoba, where the driver tried to avoid the illegal parked truck in the opposite direction, while driving the 14 km road at a speed exceeding the statutory limit of 14 km per hour, even though the mar, which the crosswalk installed in the front direction, is in the state of the main stream of the blood alcohol concentration omitted

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da4469 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1542), Supreme Court Decision 94Da18003 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2618), Supreme Court Decision 95Da28700 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 374) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da9169 delivered on August 9, 191 (Gong191, 2319), Supreme Court Decision 92Da29245 delivered on December 222, 1992 (Gong193, 565) and Supreme Court Decision 94Da29649 delivered on March 14, 196 (Gong1965).

Escopia et al.

Defendant (Attorney Oat-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Jeonju District Court Decision 94Na4601 delivered on July 18, 1996

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 피고는 1992. 11. 7. 22:40경 그 소유의 승용차를 운전하여 전북 김제군 만경면 몽산리 옥산부락 앞 도로를 진봉쪽에서 만경쪽으로 진행하게 되었는데, 때마침 반대방향에서 소외 1이 소외 유만덕을 태우고 등록되지 않은 125cc 오토바이를 운전하다가 진행방향 도로 우측과 노견에 걸쳐 불법주차된 원심 공동피고였던 김종석 소유의 서울 8고6828호 2.5톤 트럭을 뒤늦게 발견하고 이를 피하려고 급제동조치를 취하며 핸들을 좌측으로 꺽었으나 위 오토바이가 중심을 잡지 못하고 넘어지면서 중앙선을 넘어들어가자, 피고는 위 오토바이를 뒤늦게 발견하고 급제동조치를 취하였으나 미치지 못하여 위 승용차의 앞밤바 부분으로 위 오토바이를 충격하여 위 소외 1로 하여금 뇌출혈 등으로 병원으로 후송 도중 사망에 이르게 한 사실, 이 사건 사고 장소는 진봉쪽에서 만경쪽으로 연결되는 노폭 6m의 편도 1차선의 지방도로로서 황색실선의 중앙선이 설치되어 있고 제한시속이 60km인 사실, 피고가 진행하여 온 도로는 피고의 진행방향에서 보았을 때 우로 굽은 도로로 그 전방에는 횡단보도가 설치되어 있었고 위 승용차와 위 오토바이가 충돌한 지점은 횡단보도로부터 약 12m 떨어진 지점인 사실, 피고는 야간에 혈중알코올농도 미상의 주취상태로 위 승용차를 시속 약 74km의 속도로 운전하다가 이 사건 사고가 발생하게 된 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 이에 터잡아 피고는 야간에 전방에 횡단보도가 설치된 편도 1차선 도로를 진행하였으므로 속도를 줄이고 전방을 잘 살필 주의의무가 있음에도 이를 게을리한 과실이 있고 또 혈중알코올농도 미상의 주취상태에서 제한속도를 초과하여 운행한 과실이 인정되며, 이러한 피고의 과실은 이 사건 사고의 한 원인이 되었다고 판단하여 피고의 면책항변을 배척하였다.

However, since a motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a central line along his/her own lane is generally trusted in the operation of the motor vehicle in compliance with his/her own lane, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, it is a consistent view of the party member that the other motor vehicle does not have a duty of care to expect the other motor vehicle to drive the motor vehicle even if it enters the central line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da9169, Aug. 9, 1991; 94Da18003, Sept. 9, 194; 95Da28700, Oct. 12, 1995).

According to the evidence rejected by the court below, it seems that the defendant, when viewed from the defendant's moving direction, was left by the shape of the road bend and the above truck illegally parked on the front side of the road, and was not found to the point of accident of this case until the point of accident of this case. It is difficult for the defendant to expect that the above vehicle of the defendant's driving goes beyond a burging Hand on the left side and burged the upper center line to enter with the upper center, and it is difficult for him to expect that the above vehicle of the defendant's driving go through the above truck, which is the point of accident of this case, and there was no time for the defendant to take the response measures such as the operation of the operation of the operation of the brake.

Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence that the defendant could anticipate the above abnormal operation of the Oraltob above, as recognized by the court below simply, it cannot be deemed that even if the defendant operated the crosswalk at the point where the crosswalk was installed near the blood alcohol concentration, it did not immediately cause the accident of this case (in light of the records, the court below acknowledged that the defendant operated the above vehicle at about 74 km per hour in the state of drinking alcohol concentration under the influence of the blood alcohol concentration, it should not be deemed that the defendant did not make a request for the investigation of the traffic accident of this case at the site of this case since the defendant's testimony and the traffic accident analysis report (No. 12 of the A), which is hard to say that the defendant did not make a request for the investigation of the traffic accident of this case at the site of this case after the analysis of the traffic accident of the No. 9 of the court below. The purport of the judgment below is that the defendant did not make a request for the investigation of the traffic accident of this case at the site of this case, and that the defendant did not make a statement at the above 1 of this case.

Ultimately, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s defense of discharge solely on the grounds as seen earlier does not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)