The principle of trust and vehicle on the road with a sole traffic right.

On the road where it is regulated that a vehicle located in the opposite direction to a written opposite direction is unable to be operated, first of all, the vehicle is operated under the trust that the vehicle is entitled to only one-way traffic and there is no vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a negligence in driving on the road between the center and the center of the road.

Korea

Samyang Transportation Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 77Na562 delivered on May 9, 788

The part of the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

According to the judgment of the court below, the accident of collision between the 8 tons truck annexed to the defendant at issue in this case and the net collision that the nose or car, which had been spared in the street, was caused by the negligence of both sides of the non-permanent rate. The truck driving number is very difficult to match with the above-mentioned passenger vehicle at the narrow road or bridge, and if it is not possible to cause a collision due to a brush, the vehicle can be divided into the right side of the narrow road, and the vehicle driving number is a cooperation with a bridge, so it can be assumed that the above cargo, which entered the narrow road, passes through the narrow road, will reduce the speed so that it can safely walk with the above cargo, and it can be assumed that the above vehicle has a duty to maintain the safe operation of the road by reducing the speed of the vehicle to the maximum extent possible, and by expanding it to the right side or the right side of the bridge.

However, the court below's belief by the testimony of the non-party 1 and non-party 2 that the vehicles loaded on the narrow road north of the 55-meter radius from the north (On the west side) of the narrow bridge (on the west side) of the lower court's reliance on the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 are dangerous, and it can be recognized that the vehicles used on the narrow road from which they are placed in the opposite direction are prohibited from driving on the opposite side. If it is clear that the truck first started on the narrow road, as recognized by the lower court, it cannot be allowed to have a sole traffic without receiving any vehicle's difficulty from the opposite direction until the truck deviate from the above bridge, and it should have tried to wait for the truck from the south side of the bridge that was going along the narrow road adjacent to the bridge.

As such, the trucking a separate traffic zone is operated under the trust that there is no vehicle coming from the opposite direction because it is prohibited from driving the opposite vehicle, so there is no need to go to the road on the other hand, and there is no way to say that the road is between the center, so these days are the problem to be considered only when the vehicle is spared by each other.

Therefore, the conflict between the vehicle and the vehicle arising from such special zone will be held solely responsible for the vehicle that is prohibited from passing, regardless of its rules, and can not be held responsible for the vehicle that has properly passed the road.

그렇다면 원판결 인정과 같이 트럭과 트럭을 매는 줄이 길고, 또 줄이 끊어지고 핸들은 설시 방향으로 꺾어 도로중앙쪽으로 튕겨 나간 일이 있다한들 트럭에게 단독 일방통행권이 있는 트럭에게 운행의 과실을 지운 원판결판단은 자동차운전수의 운전상의 과실의 법리를 오해한 허물을 범하였으며, 이를 전제로 한 판단중 피고 패소부분 결과에 영향을 미친 위법을 남겼다고 하겠으니 논지는 이유있고 원판결은 파기를 못면한다.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer

The argument in the argument is that the judgment of the court below 4:1 is erroneous in finding the fruits between a passenger car and a truck in the accident in this case, and 5:5, or that the judgment of the court below cannot be accepted as the negligence in driving of the truck as stated in the defendant's ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)