A. In a case where there is an objective reason not to criticize a driver in the median line of yellow solid lines, whether the driver was negligent solely on the part of the median line itself

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant was negligent solely on the ground that the defendant's vehicle invadeds the central line and conflicts with other vehicles in the opposite line, even though there is an objective reason to view that there is an objective reason not to criticize the defendant in regard to the violation of the median line itself, on the ground that it violated the rules

A. In the event that there were no other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles expressed on a moving-on vessel, or where there were objective circumstances that make it impossible for a driver to criticize the driver of the central line itself due to external conditions that could not be controlled by the driver, such as the driver’s failure to take other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles, the driver cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the part of the central line itself, even if the driver gets involved in the operation of the central line, even if he was on board the central line.

B. Although there is room to view that there is an objective circumstance that could not criticize the Defendant with regard to the median line itself, the case reversed the judgment below which judged that Defendant was negligent on the ground that Defendant’s vehicle invadeds the central line and conflicts with other vehicles on the opposite line, on the ground that it violated the rules of evidence.

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Do2171 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 728) (Gong198, 728) 90Do536 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2217) 91Do1783 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong191, 2764)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Dom General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 94No244 delivered on May 20, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no negligence by the Defendant, while maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, that the accident of this case, while maintaining the judgment of the court below, which found the Defendant guilty of not negligent by negligence on the part of the victim’s lecture, which was driven in the opposite direction at the time when it was driven by the yellow solid line, while driving about about 70 km from the front side of the river at the time and place of the judgment of the Defendant, caused death or injury to the victims, and at the same time, destroyed the above damaged vehicles, which was driven by the yellow solid line at the top of the upper left side of the said cargo vehicle, due to the shock of the upper part above the upper left side of the said cargo vehicle, which led to the loss of the driver’s wheel of the victim’s typ transport in front of the upper left side of the central line, which led to the death or injury of the victims as stated in its judgment.

2. According to Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act, vehicles and horses shall pass along the lane except as otherwise provided for in this Act or any order issued under this Act on the road along which the lane is installed. According to the Central Line sign No. 601 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, three yellow solid lines, yellow dominated lines, yellow domin lines, yellow domin lines, and dominant lines, which indicate that the yellow do not go beyond the automobiles. Thus, drivers of vehicles and horses are unable to go beyond the median line, barring special circumstances. However, in light of the legislative intent of the Road Traffic Act, if there are no other appropriate measures to avoid any obstacle on the lane, or drivers of vehicles and horses try to operate their own lanes but are unable to control external drivers, they cannot be viewed as being forced to do so by their own fault to the Central Line without any objective circumstances.

3. However, the defendant's approach to the second line among the second line of the road until the court below's order that the police would pass ahead of the second line of the two lanes and the second line of the two lanes entered the second line of the two lanes, and the above large cargo vehicle operated by the above strong formula is passing over the center line, and the above large cargo vehicle is in progress on the right line, and there is no other way to avoid it on the right line, and therefore, it inevitably conflicts between the above ring line and the defendant's moving line to the left-hand line with his intention to turn back the steering gear on the left-hand line. Thus, if the situation other than the situation where the collision points in the accident occurred as the defendant alleged, it is acknowledged that the accident in this case occurred while proceeding with the opposite line of the defendant's vehicle in the front line of the two lanes, it can be seen that the accident occurred from the front line of the road in this case to the point where the defendant appeared in the front line of the front line of the road in this case cannot be inferred to the right-hand side of the defendant's vehicle.

4. If there are some circumstances, the lower court alone cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the sole ground that the collision between the Defendant’s vehicle and the front line was in the middle line, rather than the Defendant’s moving line, and it can only be determined whether there was negligence after examining whether there was an objective circumstance that makes it impossible to criticize the Defendant with regard to the central line itself at the time of the accident.

In addition, according to the records, Nonindicted Party Park Dong-dong was witness of the accident at the time of the accident and immediately behind the Defendant’s vehicle. (According to the records, the police was investigated that the accident of this case was caused by the collision with the driver of the central line and was under the direction of the prosecutor’s office only 30 days after the accident occurred, and it was investigated that the vehicle of the Defendant again was caused by the collision with the driver’s office based on the statements of the 300 days after the accident occurred.) The lower court did not examine whether there was an obstacle appearing in the same direction as the Defendant’s vehicle as the witness in the investigation of the accident of this case by examining the evidence, such as adopting the fixed proviso to the accident of this case as a witness, and it was obvious that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to whether there was a conflict between the Defendant’s vehicle and the fault at the time of the collision with the central line, and if there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defendant’s fault and the fault at the time of the accident.

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)