(a) A duty of care for a motor vehicle driver operated along his/her own lane on a roadway with a median line installed;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the negligence of the driver in the cleaning car and the taxi driver in the case of accidents that conflict with the taxi which has driven the opposite taxi by over-speeding the central line while protruding the cleaning car that parked in the opposite direction and the moving direction on the road of the first line, which is a parking-prohibited zone at night, on the road of the first line; there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the negligence of the driver;

A. A driver of a motor vehicle operated along his/her own lane on a roadway with a median line divided into the two-way traffic lanes is ordinarily trusted in the other motor vehicle in the operation of his/her own lane. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the other motor vehicle could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to pay a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle even if it is anticipated that the other motor vehicle would go along the median line and go through his/her own lane, barring special circumstances.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the negligence of the driver in the cleaning car and the taxi driver in the case of accidents that conflict with the taxi which operated the opposite line over speed while the cleaning car parked in the opposite direction and the moving direction on the road of the first line, which is a parking-prohibited zone at night, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the negligence of the driver, etc.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu2441 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1548) (Gong1990, 1575) 90Da20077 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1496) 91Da3024 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 207)

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Dongyang Transportation Co., Ltd and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na37725 delivered on January 24, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the attorney at Ansan-si

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on its timely evidence, that the driver of the cleaning vehicle (vehicle registration number 1 omitted), which is owned by the defendant 3, died in collision with the taxi (vehicle registration number 2 omitted) of the defendant Yangyang Traffic Co., Ltd., which was driven by the non-party 3, driving the above vehicle for himself, who is responsible for damages caused by the accident in this case while driving the above vehicle on the first line road at Ansan-si around 05:0 on March 5, 1989, and about 111-2, the 111-2, the 10-2, the 111-2, the 100-2, the 111-2, the 111-2, the 100-2, the 50-2, the 50-3, the 200-2, the 300-2, the 100-2, the 300-2, the 100-2, the 10.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the road at the location of the accident of this case is about 8 meters in width from the upper straight line, which is packed with a yellow line as the upper straight line. The above non-party 1 stopped the above cleaning vehicle of 2.05 meters in width in the direction of the road along the direction of the road and the opposite direction to the road, and occupied half of the vehicle's length. It only turns off the beam, turn off the tail light, the sidelights light, and the work carried on the side of the above vehicle. At the time of the accident, there was a relatively brightness due to the front light of the workplace. In light of these facts, although the above non-party 1 was working in the zone where cleaning the above vehicle was prohibited, it was easily turned on the safety light even if it was done, and it was recognized that the vehicle was under the duty of due care to prevent the vehicle from being driven by the driver of the vehicle, and thus, it can be seen that the part of the vehicle was under cleaning the vehicle.

Thus, the accident of this case is caused by the negligence of the above non-party 2, and even if the accident's point is the area where parking is prohibited, it cannot be viewed as the cause of the accident of this case, apart from the violation of Article 28 of the Road Traffic Act. The court below cited as one of the negligence of the non-party 1, the above non-party 1's failure to place a person who provides water signals on the frontline of the cleaning vehicle or to install a work marking pole, but it cannot be said that the driver of the above cleaning vehicle has a duty to take such measures as well as disclosing the lights or the width of the cleaning vehicle at night, and it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal link between the above non-party 1 who failed to take the above measures.

The judgment of the court below shall have affected the judgment on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the negligence of the above non-party 1.

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Dongyang Transport Co., Ltd.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while Nonparty 3 operated a taxi (vehicle registration number 2 omitted) owned by the Defendant Company based on its timely evidence and passed the point of accident of this case at a speed of about 60 kilometers per hour when the speed exceeds 20 kilometers from the inside of the city of Ansan-si, the court below rejected the Defendant Company’s defense of exemption from liability on the grounds that: (a) it was found that Nonparty 3 was responsible for compensation for damages as a person who operates the Defendant Company for his own motor vehicle, and that the vehicle driving on the opposite part was operated at a speed exceeding the central line, and was negligent in failing to take appropriate countermeasures immediately after the collision, on the ground that the vehicle was driven at a speed exceeding the statutory speed, and was negligent in failing to take appropriate countermeasures immediately.

As a driver of an automobile operating along his own lane on the roadway where the median line divided into the intersection line is installed, it is common to believe that the other party would normally operate the vehicle along the opposite line if the vehicle is traveling along the opposite line. Thus, barring any special circumstance that can be anticipated that the other party would normally operate the vehicle, the other party does not have a duty of care to drive the vehicle even if it is anticipated that the other party would go along the median line and go through the opposite line, barring any special circumstance that the other party would have anticipated the abnormal operation. It is the consistent view of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1073, Mar. 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu231, Sept. 6, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu6733, Jun. 22, 1990; 90Meu2441, Jun. 26, 1990).

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, it appears that the above non-party 3 was not found to have been placed in the cleaning vehicle of the front bank and the vehicle traffic was not frequent since it was a new wall at the time. Thus, it is difficult for the above non-party 3 to predict the cleaning vehicle of the front and the central line in the front of the Aar own cleaning vehicle, and therefore, it cannot be said that the above non-party 3 has a duty to take measures to prevent the accident. The above non-party 3 was unable to witness the accident coming from the opposite line. The non-party 3 was unable to look at the cleaning vehicle of the front bank, and there was no time to take measures to cope with the accident, such as the operation of the operation of the operation system immediately after the collision. Furthermore, as recognized by the court below, it cannot be said that the above non-party 3 was at a level above the central level of the accident exceeding the above 30 kilometers. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a reasonable causal relation between the above non-party 3's negligence.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the negligence of the operator operating the opposite line, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

For the above reasons, the part of the judgment below against the defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)