Whether or not a driver has a duty to call attention to a person in an internal relationship with the driver for safe operation.

Even though a person who is on the side of the driver's seat has an internal relation with the driver, it cannot be said that he/she has a duty of care to call attention to the person who is on the side of the driver's seat so that he/she can ensure safe operation and prevent the accident in advance.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2916 delivered on March 5, 1987

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

Even though a person who is on the side of the driver's seat has an internal relationship with the driver, such person cannot be said to have a duty of care to call attention to the driver to prevent the accident in advance.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was at a close relationship with the defendant for about seven years prior to the date of the accident, and the plaintiff was on the side seat of the driver's seat of the vehicle involved in the accident to play together with the defendant. Thus, the court below held that it is reasonable to view that the defendant's fault ratio in the accident of this case is 20 percent in the accident of this case, since the plaintiff neglected to stop in front of the crosswalk and go slowly in order to prevent the crossing from passing through or yield the course by driving at a time in front of the crosswalk, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case was caused by negligent care, and therefore, it is unlawful as it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on negligence in offsetting negligence.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The judgment of the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff could not engage in a sexual surgery on the upper part of the judgment, even after the medical treatment has been completed, and that the plaintiff could not engage in a multi-face face fence at the time of the accident in this case due to the subsequent legacy, and that the plaintiff suffered loss from the import of the above. Accordingly, the court below's decision is just and there is no ground for discussing this issue, since there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing, or exercise of right to explanation.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)