[1] The driver's duty of care to operate a road on which a median line is installed

[2] The case holding that a driver of a motor vehicle, who discovered in advance that the driver of a motor vehicle who found the driver from the opposite vehicle might get out of the center line to overtake the driver of the motor vehicle with a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by predicting that the driver might get out of the center line to overtake the driver of the motor vehicle

[1] A motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a median line along his/her own bus line is generally aware of the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle of the other party, the other party is not obliged to pay a duty of care to forecast and drive the median line until the other party gets invaded. However, if there are special circumstances that can anticipate the operation of the motor vehicle in advance by an abnormal method, the other party's motor vehicle driver is not obliged to take all measures to prevent accidents by putting the other party in a careful calculation even when the vehicle is operated by an abnormal method.

[2] The case holding that a driver of a motor vehicle, who discovered in advance that the driver of a motor vehicle who found the driver from the opposite vehicle would have a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle, by predicting that the driver might go beyond the central line, in order to overtake the driver of the motor vehicle who found the driver from the opposite vehicle.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Da955 delivered on December 22, 1981 (Gong1982, 220), Supreme Court Decision 87Meu607 delivered on March 8, 198 (Gong1988, 653), Supreme Court Decision 92Da21494 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong193, 1057)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term” means “the term.

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-dong Law Office, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na27291 delivered on November 12, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below found the defendant's defense that the non-party 1, the insured of the defendant, is due to the whole negligence of the above deceased's driver, and that the non-party 1 was not negligent in driving the motor vehicle beyond the central line, and that the non-party 1 was not negligent in driving the motor vehicle at a 60-km straight line, and that the non-party 1 was not negligent in driving the motor vehicle above the central line, and that the non-party 1 was not negligent in driving the motor vehicle at a speed above the central line, and that the non-party 1 was not negligent in driving the motor vehicle at a speed above the central line, but did not take any further measures to reduce the speed of the accident, such as the non-party 1's speed of driving the motor vehicle at a speed above the central line. The court below found the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's speed of driving the motor vehicle at a speed above the central line, and then did not take measures to reduce the speed of the accident at a speed above.

2. A. A. A. The driver of a motor vehicle who operates a road with a median line along his/her own bus line is generally aware that the motor vehicle from a marina line will be operated in compliance with his/her own bus line. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to pay a duty of care to forecast and drive the other motor vehicle until the accident occurs. However, in special circumstances where it is possible to anticipate the other motor vehicle to be operated in advance by abnormal means, the other motor vehicle cannot be trusted, and thus, the other motor vehicle driver is obliged to take all measures to prevent the accident by carefully calculating the other motor vehicle to be operated by abnormal means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da21494, Feb. 23, 1993; 87Meu607, Mar. 8, 1988).

B. In this case, the fact-finding by the court below as to the reasons for the accident in this case is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and if the facts are true, it is proper to determine that the accident in this case occurred since the court below neglected the duty of care to prevent the accident in advance, such as the duty of care to prevent the accident from being able to prevent the accident from being able to keep the driver from being able to overtake the horse in advance, with the presumption of the fact that the above Orala might go beyond the central line in order to avoid the above Orala, and that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the driver's duty of care or the legal principles as to the causation

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)