Whether the fault of the driver of the vehicle B is recognized in the case where the vehicle A, which was in excess of the central line, conflicts with the vehicle B, which was in excess of the speed on the opposite line.

Inasmuch as a motor vehicle driver who operates a road on which a median line is installed along his/her own bus line is trusting that he/she will drive the motor vehicle in compliance with his/her own bus line, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle of the other party, the other motor vehicle is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle even if it enters the central line, and the other motor vehicle is not negligent on the ground that the other motor vehicle driver has driven the motor vehicle in excess of the speed limit. However, the latter cannot be deemed to be negligent in driving the motor vehicle only when he/she was negligent on the ground that the other motor vehicle was driven in excess of the speed limit. However, if he/she did not drive the motor vehicle in excess of speed, it can be deemed to have avoided a collision immediately with stopping or speed.

Articles 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da4469 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1542) 92Da34650 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 580) 94Da18003 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2618)

Dongyang Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na2105 delivered on May 30, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The lower court rejected Nonparty 1’s failure to drive the said vehicle at the speed of about 7.7 degrees on the national highway between Daejeon and Seocheon, while driving the said vehicle at the speed of about 50 km in front of the front line and driving the said vehicle at the speed of about 16.5 meters per hour. On the other hand, the lower court found that the Defendant’s failure to drive the said vehicle at the speed of 16.5 meters per hour on the front line to drive the said vehicle at the speed of the front line and to drive the said vehicle at the speed of about 7.7 degrees. On the other hand, the lower court rejected Nonparty 1’s failure to drive the said vehicle at the speed of the front line and to drive the said vehicle at the speed of 16.5 meters per hour on the road due to the collision between the above front line and the front line of the road at the speed of 1,000 square meters per hour, while driving the vehicle at the speed of 60.7 meters per hour per hour on the road at the speed of the above front line.

However, inasmuch as a motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a central line along his/her own lane is generally aware of the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle in compliance with his/her own lane, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle cannot be found to have been negligent on the ground that the other motor vehicle did not have a duty of care to drive the other motor vehicle even if he/she intrudes upon the central line, and that the other motor vehicle driver was negligent on the sole ground that he/she driven the other motor vehicle at a limited speed beyond the restricted speed. However, if he/she did not drive the other motor vehicle, he/she may be deemed to have been negligent on the part of the other motor vehicle only when he/she could avoid a collision immediately after discovering the central line of the other motor vehicle. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da4469, Apr. 10, 192; 9Da1803, Sep. 9, 194).

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, even if the defendant found that the motor vehicle from the frame of the non-party 1's driving which goes beyond the high speed of the road runs across the central line for overtaking the motor vehicle, the distance between the discovery point and the accident point is about 50 meters, and even until the collision after that point, the above presses are not completely returned to the central line, and the motor vehicle is in conflict with the defendant's vehicle at the point where the body is left, and even if the above road is a narrow road with the width of which is not less than 9.2 meters including the side way on which the road is not packed, the opposite line is large, and the defendant's driving line is very large, and it was necessary for the defendant to avoid the collision with the above speed of the motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 6.2 meters, and it was necessary for the defendant to take measures to avoid the collision with the above speed of the vehicle at a speed above 6.0 meters, and it was necessary for the defendant to take other measures to avoid the collision.

Therefore, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of discharge on the ground that the defendant's excessive speed was the cause of the accident, and there is an error of law as to the driver's negligence, and such an error affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)