[1] The degree of the duty of care of the driver of a motor vehicle operated with his/her own car line in the median accident at the center line, and whether his/her excessive operation can be viewed as a negligence (negative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that a driver's designated lane operated with his own car line in an accident involving a median line and the negligence of excessive operation caused the occurrence of an accident or the expansion of damage

[1] Generally, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road along which a median line is marked along his/her own lane is believed to drive the motor vehicle in compliance with his/her own lane. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle of the other party, barring special circumstances, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle with two lanes or road edges in advance, and is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle with two lanes or road edges, and even if the other motor vehicle violates traffic regulations, such as driving in excess of the speed limit, if the driver did not drive the motor vehicle in excess of the speed limit, it can be deemed that the latter motor vehicle was negligent in driving the motor vehicle.

[2] The case holding that a driver's designated lane operated with his own car line in the central course of a collision accident and the negligence of excessive operation caused the occurrence of an accident or the expansion of damage

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Articles 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da42419 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1575), Supreme Court Decision 94Da42419 delivered on February 13, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 926), Supreme Court Decision 96Da39158 delivered on January 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 638), Supreme Court Decision 99Da40548 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 821) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da4469 delivered on April 10, 192 (Gong1992, 1542), Supreme Court Decision 90Da39849 delivered on October 24, 1995 (Gong1995Da297489 delivered on October 24, 197).

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim-type, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

National Freight Trucking Federation (Attorney Song-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Na1196 delivered on November 2, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the facts based on the evidence of the court below, and held that the driver of a motor vehicle with the central line installed along his own lane is trusting that he will drive the motor vehicle. Thus, unless there are special circumstances that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle does not have a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by putting the two-lane or right edges of the other motor vehicle in advance, and even if the driver did not drive the motor vehicle beyond the speed limit, if the driver did not drive the motor vehicle, it cannot be viewed that the other motor vehicle could avoid collision by immediately cutting down or driving the two-lanes of the other motor vehicle's central line. However, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the designated speed limit of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, but did not go beyond the speed limit of the two-lane road at the time of the accident. Thus, the non-party 1 did not have a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle at the speed limit of the accident.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)