Degree of the driver's duty of care for the motor vehicles operated along his/her own motor vehicle on the road with yellow central line installed.

On the road where the yellow central line of prohibition of intrusion is operated along his own lane, it is common that the vehicle from the opposite direction is trusted to be operated along his own lane, and the vehicle has no duty of care to drive by predicting the situation where the vehicle is invaded by the median line to the other side line.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 4 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant

1. The case where the defendant 1 and 3 others are included in the judgment of the court below

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na3296 delivered on May 13, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: the point of accident of this case is the straight line of the asphalt 21 meters wide, the 3rd line, and the 2nd line along the roadways wide, and the 60 kilometers long speed, and the non-party finite finite finite find find find find find find find find find find find find find find find find find find find find find f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

As above, it is common to say that the vehicle from the opposite direction to the driver's license of the vehicle operated along the self-vehicle line on the road where the yellow central line of the prohibition of intrusion was operated, as well as the vehicle from the opposite direction, does not have a duty of care to drive the vehicle by predicting the situation where the vehicle is invaded by the central line, and it is not a duty of care to drive the vehicle up to the opposite line. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that denied the liability for negligence of the same disease is justified.

However, it is argued that the opposite vehicle has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident by carefully stopping or driving the vehicle by taking appropriate measures, such as rapid stopping or driving of the vehicle, by carefully examining the movement of the opposite vehicle, but according to the evidence of employment of the court below, the injured vehicle intrudes on the opposite vehicle at the front of 30 meters prior to the end of the vehicle, and the injured vehicle was driving at a very rapid speed. Thus, the time after the injured vehicle intrudes on the center line and the vehicle was driving at a very rapid speed, the time between the injured vehicle and the down to the collision with the accused vehicle is deemed to have been nearly pure. On the left side line of the Defendant vehicle, it is recognized that there was no intention to avoid driving other than rapid stopping, and thus, there was no sufficient time to take any measures in advance by examining the movement of the damaged vehicle that affected the center line.

Ultimately, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)