The case holding that although an accident occurred at a point beyond the central line of the road, it cannot be viewed as an accident on the central line under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

In a case where the Defendant, while driving a one ton truck and driving a one-way lane on a speed of about 76 kilometers at a speed, discovered the victim who gets a bicycle along the center of the road at a speed of about 50 meters from the former 50 meters to the center of the road, coming 30 meters away from the center line to the left at a point beyond the center line at the time when the said bicycle is overtaken, if the victim met the victim at a point beyond the center line, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s central collision act was the direct cause of the above accident, and thus, it cannot be said that Article 3(2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is an exception to the traffic accident, cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent, solely on the ground that it is the point beyond the center line.

Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 89No292 delivered on June 22, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant driving one ton truck at the time of the accident in this case and driving about about 76 kilometers from the front section of the road at a level of 50 meters from the front section of the road while driving the accident point of this case, which is the first line, at the time of the accident in the speed of about 76 kilometers, brought a bicycle to the center part of the road, 30 meters away from the center line, and proceeded to 30 meters away from the center line to the right side of the road at the time of the passing of the above self-defense. The defendant shocked the victim at the right side of the road to turn to the left at the right side of the road at the time of the passing of the above self-defense. On the contrary, the defendant's central collision cannot be deemed as the direct cause of the accident in this case. Thus, the application of the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents cannot be applied solely on the ground that the

The decision of the court below that upheld the judgment of the court of first instance that held to the same purport is just, and it cannot be found that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as the arguments are asserted.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)