1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the defendant added the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court; and (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the dismissal or addition as follows; and (c) thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The "D" of the 3th judgment of the first instance court shall be written in the form of "C".

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, the "C" in Part 12 shall be applied to "D".

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion on the exemption of liability 1) The instant accident in the instant case is the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) following the Defendant’s collision with the sudden center line while driving the Oralba. C.

(ii) The accident of this case occurred in the course of trying to avoid the collision with the above Oba, and even if the defendant's vehicle driven normally without speed, it cannot avoid the collision with the other party Obaba. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a negligence D in the accident of this case. Thus, the driver of the vehicle operating the road on which the judgment central line is installed along his own car line is used to trust that the vehicle of this case would be operated in compliance with the other party's vehicle line. Thus, unless there are special circumstances that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other party's vehicle, the other party's vehicle did not have a duty of care to anticipate the abnormal operation of the other party's vehicle by harming the central line, and it cannot be viewed that the other party's vehicle was negligent solely on the ground that the above driver driven the vehicle beyond the restricted speed. However, if it was not a continuous operation, it can be viewed that the situation of this case's vehicle can avoid the collision immediately stopping or continuous operation of the other party's central line.

Supreme Court Decision 91Da4469 delivered on April 10, 1992