[1] The duty of care of the driver of an automobile driving on an expressway

[2] The case holding that the driver's negligence caused an accident that causes the collision between the driver and the driver who illegally crosses the expressway at night.

[1] Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians cannot walk or cross an expressway. Thus, the driver of a motor vehicle driving on an expressway has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle while preparing for allowing pedestrians to stop on the expressway, in the absence of special circumstances, to expect the traffic or crossing of the expressway, and therefore, even if the driver caused an accident due to the shock of the victim driving on the expressway without permission, there was a circumstance in which the driver could anticipate such unauthorized crossing in advance at a reasonable distance, and if the driver took measures such as immediately speeding or rapid driving on the expressway, barring special circumstances such as the occurrence of a collision with the victim, it cannot be deemed that there was a negligence on the driver of the motor vehicle.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the driver's negligence on the ground that it is highly likely that the driver did not neglect his/her duty of care in the case where the preceding accident caused an accident that causes the driver's negligence on the part of the vehicle which stops on the third-lane of the expressway due to the preceding accident at night, and the driver's negligence on the part of the driver.

[1] Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do1808 delivered on December 8, 1981 (Gong1982, 187) Supreme Court Decision 88Do1484 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 706) Supreme Court Decision 96Da22525 delivered on October 15, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3390)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Dongdong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na50390 delivered on December 22, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the non-party 1 had adopted the evidence on May 13, 1995, and the non-party 1 should have 00 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m4 m4 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m4 m3 m4 m4.

2. Judgment of party members

Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians cannot walk or cross an expressway. Thus, barring any special circumstance, a driver of an automobile driving on an expressway is not obliged to pay a duty of care to drive a motor vehicle while comparing for pedestrians to make a sudden stop, considering the expectation that pedestrians would walk or cross the expressway, barring special circumstances. Therefore, even in cases where an accident occurs due to the shock of a victim driving on an expressway without permission, there was a circumstance in which the driver could anticipate such unauthorized crossing from a considerable distance in advance, and if the driver took measures such as speeding immediately or rapid driving, barring special circumstances where the driver would be able to escape from collision with the victim, it cannot be deemed that there was a negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da22525, Oct. 15, 196; 8Do1484, Mar. 28, 1989).

According to the records, the accident place is a little point on the left side without street, and even if the accident of this case took place more than the non-party 1, the non-party 3 operated the above non-party 3 truck at a speed of about 70 km after the accident, and changed the direction to the median line from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1. The non-party 3 discovered that the non-party 1 truck was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 driver was non-party 1 and the non-party 3 was non-party 1, who was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was non-party 1, who was non-party 1 and the non-party 3 was non-party 1, who was non-party 1 and the non-party 3 was non-party 1, who was non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was non-party 1, who was non-party 2, who was non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who was non-party 2.

Ultimately, when Nonparty 1 turns out the status of the vehicle at the time when Nonparty 1 discovered the above small-scale private taxi in the facts acknowledged by the court below, even though it is highly likely that Nonparty 1 was not negligent in giving due attention to the operation of the vehicle in the accident of this case, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the defendant's non-party 1 was not negligent in driving the vehicle without examining the above circumstances and the distance necessary to operate the vehicle, and it is clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty of care required for the operation of the expressway, and that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments are with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)