The meaning of "in the case of infringing on the median line of a road along which a lane is installed" in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Article 3 (2) (proviso) (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where traffic accidents occur, not to refer to all cases where the point of occurrence of traffic accidents exceeds the center line, but to the case where traffic accidents occur due to continuous sed operation of the center line or even if there is no continuous sed operation, even if there is no inevitable reason, the traffic accidents occur due to the continuous sed operation of the center line.

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

Supreme Court Decision 84Do193 Decided March 27, 1984, 85Do1487 Decided September 10, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1142 Decided September 9, 1986

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 86No979 delivered on July 23, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3(2) proviso of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents does not refer to the cases where the point of occurrence of traffic accidents exceeds the center line in light of the purpose of the legislation, but it is reasonable to say that the cases where traffic accidents have occurred through the center line even though the traffic accidents have occurred due to the continuous sed operation of the center line or continuous sed operation has not occurred due to the continuous sed operation of the center line, even though there is no inevitable reason. (See Supreme Court Decision 86Do142 delivered on September 9, 1986).

Therefore, even if the court below was negligent in operating a sloping road without securing the safety distance with the taxi prior to the defendant, it is just to determine that the accident of this case does not constitute a traffic accident due to the median line under the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Collision with the taxi, and that the accident of this case does not constitute a traffic accident due to the median line, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)