(a) The meaning of "an act of breaking the median line of the road on which a lane is installed" in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

B. Whether “In the case where a taxi driver gets on and off a bicycle and gets a bicycle at around 30 cm with the central line where the victim is about to inflict damage on the victim, and the victim gets a left-hand turn on the taxi and gets a collision with the taxi, it constitutes “influence of the central line of the road where the lane is installed” in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement

A. The term "if a traffic accident is committed in violation of the provisions of Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act of the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" means the case where a traffic accident is committed due to the act of driving a vehicle by breaking the central line, that is, the case where a traffic accident directly causes the occurrence of a traffic accident. Thus, as long as the act of course by the central line is directly causing the occurrence of a traffic accident, the location of the accident must be the opposite line beyond the central line. However, if the act of course by the central line is not the direct cause of the traffic accident, the traffic accident is not all included in the operation of the central line.

B. In a case where a taxi driver gets on a bicycle in the same direction as around about 30 meters, and the victim gets left to the left and went to the front of the said taxi, so if the victim failed to avoid it, it does not constitute a central intrusion under Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

The former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accidents Settlement

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 90No316 delivered on June 21, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

When a traffic accident is caused by the act of driving a motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act of the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where the traffic accident is caused by the act of driving a motor vehicle in violation of the central line in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Therefore, as long as the act of intrusion by the central line directly causes a traffic accident, the place of the accident must be the opposite line beyond the central line is not necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do536, Sept. 25, 1990).

According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant driving a taxi at approximately 60 kilometers a speed of 60 kilometers near the point of accident, discovered the victim who gets a bicycle in the same direction and proceeded with the central line about 30 centimeters in order to cause damage, and the victim got a bicycle to turn to the left, thereby falling short of the above special law. Thus, the judgment of the court below which held that the accident of this case does not constitute the above special law is justifiable in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. The arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)