The case reversing the original judgment on the ground that the fault ratio of both vehicles should be deemed to be 1:9 with respect to accidents that conflict on the center line of the road.

The case reversing the original judgment on the ground that the fault ratio of both vehicles is unfair to 1:9 with respect to accidents that conflict on the central line of the road;

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Hong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Na224 delivered on April 26, 1985

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

Article 396 of the Civil Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to tort under Article 763 of the same Act, applies mutatis mutandis to tort under Article 763 of the same Act, shall be taken into consideration in determining liability for damages and the amount thereof when there is any negligence on the part of the creditor or the injured party with respect to the occurrence of the cause of the default or the occurrence of damages caused by such occurrence, mitigation of objections, avoidance, etc., by considering the principle of good faith, as the purpose of realizing the equitable burden of damages that may reasonably be deemed reasonable. Thus, whether the creditor or the injured party was negligent on the part of the creditor or the injured party shall be examined and determined, regardless of the existence of the party's assertion, if there is negligence, it must be taken into consideration in determining whether the creditor or the injured party was negligent on the part of the creditor or the injured party, and then the exemption or the amount of compensation shall be reduced in accordance with the principle of fairness by comparing and comparing such circumstances

On the other hand, the criteria for such consideration in offsetting negligence are not specifically stipulated under the current law, but the offsetting negligence is based on the principle of fairness, so the degree of negligence between the creditor and the debtor or the victim and the perpetrator should be taken into account according to various circumstances according to the specific issues based on the principle of fairness, and the occurrence and expansion of the cause and the damage should be proportional and flexible.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, who is a driver of a truck of 7 A. 5894 tones of 2.5 tons, who is under his own possession of the defendant, committed an accident with the driver's duty of care at the center of the plaintiff 7, 4544 tons, and the non-party 1, who is a driver of a truck of 2.5 tons: around 30, 1980: the non-party 1, who is under his own possession, committed an accident with the driver's duty of care, considering the fact that the non-party 1's failure to observe the upper speed of the vehicle at the e.g., the non-party 1, while driving the vehicle at the speed of e., e., the non-party 1, the non-party 1, while neglecting the duty of care to prevent the plaintiff 1 from driving the vehicle at the speed of the accident while driving the vehicle at the speed of e.g., the non-party 1's fault.

However, as in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to accurately measure the ratio of the negligence of the plaintiff Hong Young and the non-party, and the rate of the negligence of the plaintiff Hong Young and the non-party, as in the opinion of the court below, and in particular, the accident point where the two vehicles conflict is the central line of the road, and it is obvious by the evidence that the collision accident occurred on the central line of the road. The plaintiff Hong Young-young asserts that the collision accident occurred on the central line of the road (the judgment of the court below also states that the negligence of the plaintiff Hong Young-young appears to indicate that the collision point is the central line, as in the above stated in the judgment of the court below, because it expresses that the negligence of the plaintiff Hong-young was operated on the central line, and therefore it seems that the collision point is the central line) cannot be viewed as unfair

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the legal principles on offsetting negligence, which did not provide the reasons or contradictions in the reasons, which is contrary to the principle of justice and equity, and therefore there is a reason to discuss the appeal of trees.

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

Examining the evidence in comparison with the evidence of the court below at the time of the first instance trial in light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the truck was owned by the defendant and that the truck was owned by the non-party, is justifiable, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law like the theory of litigation in the process of the trial or the determination of the evidence by the court below. Thus, the appeal is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit in the ground of appeal No. 1 and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)