Whether there is a duty of care to drive a motor vehicle expected even when the other party to the motor vehicle gets involved in the central line and gets involved in the motor vehicle.

In general, in the case of a collision between the two-way vehicle and the two-way vehicle, the other party's vehicle is also trusted that the vehicle would normally be operated along the other party's own vehicle when passing along the other party's vehicle from the opposite direction. Thus, in the case where the other party's vehicle intrudes the central line and the vehicle owned by the defendant is in excess of the other party's vehicle, and the collision accident occurred due to the other party's vehicle being operated beyond the other party's vehicle's own vehicle, it is not known that there were special circumstances that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the victim's vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the collision. However, if the vehicle owned by the defendant is not operated in the second-way vehicle which is the cargo-designated vehicle, but operated in excess of the first-way vehicle or restricted speed, it cannot be concluded that the vehicle owned by the

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 3705, Mar. 27, 1988) (Law No. 1988, Mar. 27, 1988) (Law No. 1988, Jun. 27, 1988) (Law No. 1988, Dec. 261, 198) (Law No. 1988, Mar. 14, 1989)

Kim full-time et al.

Attorney Lee Dong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Na3563 delivered on December 8, 1989

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, at around 01:10 on December 5, 1987, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the above 7A315 tons of freight truck owned by the defendant, operated the above truck at around 01:10 on December 5, 1987, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the above Kim Young-ro truck, was responsible for driving the above truck at the first line of the 3rd line in front of the agricultural cooperative marketing center located in Seo-gu, Gwangju, while driving the vehicle above at the top line, going beyond the central line, caused the non-party 1's death by driving the above 7A315 on the left side of the above truck and caused the above 1's death by driving the above 2nd line to the above 3rd line of no more than the upper line of fault at the speed of the above 3rd line of the accident, and the vehicle was parked at the speed of the above 1's 2nd line of the accident.

2. In short, the above judgment of the court below is purported to view the fact that the non-party Kim Fir, which is the defendant truck driver, operated with the first line without operating it with the second line designated as the truck truck, and operated with the second line over a speed of 80 kilometers per hour exceeding the speed limit limit.

However, it is common to trust in the operation of a motor vehicle according to the normal low-speed line of the other motor vehicle in the opposite direction in the case of a collision with the other motor vehicle, on the roadway where the center line dividing the intersection line is installed. Therefore, barring any special circumstance that can anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle even if it is anticipated that the other motor vehicle is flicked along the center line of the other motor vehicle and flicked into the other motor vehicle line.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the collision accident of this case is an accident that occurred by an ombudsman beyond the vehicle on which the defendant-owned vehicle is driving along the center line. Thus, if the driver's number of the defendant-owned vehicle at the time could anticipate the abnormal operation of the victim-owned vehicle, unless there are special circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant-owned vehicle is liable for the above collision accident merely because it is not operated on the second line, which is the cargo-designated vehicle, but operated on the first line, or operated in excess of the speed limit.

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the court below erred in recognizing the Defendant’s liability for negligence on the part of the fact that the Defendant exceeded the restricted speed without examining the existence of such special circumstances as above.

3. However, if a vehicle owned by the defendant could avoid collision by discovering the central course of the vehicle driving by the victim if it did not drive the vehicle under speed, i.e., speeding or avoiding the collision, but could not avoid collision due to the fact that it did not drive the vehicle under speed, there is room for recognizing the defendant's liability for negligence in the number of driving vehicles owned by the defendant. However, the court below did not completely see this point.

In addition, according to the records, the court below acknowledged the operating speed of the Defendant-owned vehicle as speed of 80 kilometers per hour at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case is mainly based on Gap evidence 13-1 and 2 (Notification of the Cause Analysis of Traffic Accidents and Written Opinions). However, examining the contents, it can be seen that the Defendant-owned vehicle calculates the speed of the Defendant-owned vehicle on the basis of the fact that the Defendant-owned vehicle length is 22 meters long and the victim-owned vehicle was 14 meters back to the collision.

However, it is difficult to clearly understand what is the content above, and it is difficult to accept, as it is difficult to regard the difference between the victim driver's vehicle and the driver's vehicle's driver's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's weight of 80 kilograms and 50 kilograms respectively at the time of the accident, since it is difficult to accept by calculating, etc. the weight of each of the victim's driver's vehicle and one of the passengers in the defendant's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's own vehicle's own vehicle's own vehicle's own vehicle's own vehicle's own vehicle's own vehicle's own moving toward the defendant's vehicle's moving toward the opposite direction due to the shock between the collision and the opposite direction.

4. In conclusion, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the liability of the driver of a vehicle and by misunderstanding the value of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion,

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)