Whether it is a case where the median line over the median line of the road where the median line is installed in order to avoid a collision with the other vehicle with the other vehicle with the fore-line one's own lane.

If a vehicle running the first lane of a second lane of the same direction stops immediately in order to avoid a collision by reporting that another vehicle running along the second lane of the same direction enters the second lane of the same direction, but the body fails to stop immediately and exceeds the center line while leaving the port, it does not constitute a sloping of the center line of the road on which the latter lane is installed under Article 3(2) proviso of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 3744, Aug. 4, 1984).

Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984)

Supreme Court Decision 85Do329 Decided April 23, 1985 85Do384 Decided May 14, 1985

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No1714 delivered on June 27, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As determined by the court below, if the defendant suddenly stops in order to avoid a collision by reporting the change of the vehicle's own car line to enter the vehicle's moving line in the same direction while driving a taxi belonging to the new driving of the defendant's taxi at the time and at the same time and at the same place with the first line of the second line of the second line of the road at a speed of 40 kilometers per hour. However, if the defendant gets injured to the victim Kim-ju who was on the front line of the vehicle at the same direction, the defendant does not immediately stop on the ground of the relationship where the vehicle was unsatisfed due to a large amount of rain at the time, and the body of the vehicle was unsatisfed, and the part of the vehicle was cut back to the port of the opposite line, and thereby causing the injury to the victim Kim-ju who was on the front line of the defendant's taxi, the second line of the defendant is without merit in the misapprehension of legal principles.

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

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)