Cases where a driver's harmful act cannot be deemed as an act of emergency evacuation under Article 761 (2) of the Civil Act.

Among the requirements for emergency evacuation stipulated in paragraph 2 of this Article, it does not include an urgent danger created by the perpetrator's intentional or negligent act. Thus, if a driver's disease is changed to the direction of the driver's 45 kilometers per hour from a point of 25 kilometers per hour at the speed of restriction to avoid a collision with three pedestrians while the driver's disease is changing to the direction of the driver's 45 kilometers per hour, the act of the driver's disease does not constitute an emergency evacuation.

Article 761(2) of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na3151 Decided July 12, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

As to the first ground for appeal, it is reasonable to view that the urgent danger among the requirements for emergency evacuation stipulated in Article 761(2) of the Civil Act does not include the perpetrator’s intentional or negligent act. According to the facts established by the court below, the circumstances leading up to the fire in this case are as follows.

In other words, in order to avoid a collision with three persons in distress, the Nonparty’s Nonparty Nonparty’s driver’s disease, who was the perpetrator, at the time of the accident, adjusted the vehicle suddenly at the speed of 45 km (25 km in speed) with the front wheels of the vehicle, and caused the collision with the store located on the left-hand side of the road at the speed of 90 degrees and 1 meter in the store, and caused the collision into the store, and caused the collision into the chemical medicine in the store (the road at the time of the moto). If this fact is factually, the act of the above driver’s disease cannot be said to constitute an act of emergency evacuation. In this regard, the lower court did not have any illegality in the incomplete hearing.

(2) As to the second ground of appeal, the court below did not ex officio investigate whether the plaintiff was killed due to the fire as seen above and had adequate fire prevention facilities at that time, and there is no evidence as to this point without examining it by the court below. The court below rejected the defendant's defense of offsetting negligence and cannot be viewed as an unlawful act. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of offsetting negligence.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet