[1] In a case where there are objective circumstances in which a driver is unable to criticize the driver in regard to the driver's infringement of the central line, whether the driver was negligent (negative)

[2] The case holding that there was a negligence on the part of the driver who injured the central line

[1] In a case where there are objective circumstances making it impossible for a driver to criticize a driver in regard to a violation of the central line itself, such as the failure of the driver to take other appropriate measures to avoid an obstacle shown on the vehicle line, or the driver’s failure to maintain his/her own vehicle line, but he/she cannot be deemed to be at fault on the part of the driver, even if he/she operated the central line by breaking the central line.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant was negligent in the case where the victim's automobile driven by the victim was driven in a close distance to the center line without taking appropriate measures to avoid collisions while finding the two vehicles in a considerable distance, and where the two vehicles are driving without taking measures to avoid collisions, and the two vehicles are operating the steering gear toward the port, operating the steering gear toward the center line, and the victim's automobile was driven by the victim's vehicle

[1] Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents / [2] Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Do2171 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 728), Supreme Court Decision 90Do536 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2217), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1783 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2764), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1629 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2916)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yang Dong-chul

Gwangju District Court Decision 95No949 delivered on April 8, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In cases where there were no other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles on a moving-on vessel, or where there were objective circumstances that make it impossible for a driver to criticize the driver with regard to the intrusion itself, such as the driver's failure to care due to external conditions that could not be controlled by the driver, etc., the driver cannot be deemed to have any negligence on the part of the driver on the part of the central line itself (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1629 delivered on September 27, 1994).

However, by comparing the relevant evidence employed by the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below with the records, the defendant does not take appropriate measures to avoid the collision of two vehicles even if the vehicle driven by the victim's abnormal South Korea is discovered at a considerable distance from the center line, and even at the time when the two vehicles run as it is, the two vehicles run as it is without any proper measures to avoid the collision, and shall operate the steering gear toward the port, thereby exceeding the central line, and receive the victim's automobile. The fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no error of law by misconceptioning the facts against the rules of evidence, and if it is such factual basis, the court below's decision that the defendant was negligent shall also be justified. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)