Principle of Trust in Automobile Operation

In the absence of special circumstances, a driver of a motor vehicle is able to believe that the vehicle driving in the opposite direction would not disturb the central line due to traffic regulations. Therefore, if a collision with the damaged vehicle occurs due to the collision between the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle being invaded beyond the central line at a close distance of 15 meters from fire to the nearest distance of the 15 meters, the driver of the motor vehicle cannot be at fault on the part of the damaged vehicle.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 11-2 of the Road Traffic Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant corporation

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap7216) in the first instance trial

(1) The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

(3) The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in both the first and second instances.

The plaintiffs' legal representative shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 the amount of KRW 1,00,000, KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff 2, and the amount of KRW 500,000 to each of the above amounts at the rate of 5% per annum from August 1, 1971 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs should be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The defendant's attorney sought the same judgment as the disposition.

(1) On July 31, 1971, 2:40, at the time of the fact-finding of the defendant's employees, the non-party 2 was trying to find the above part of the 5-day truck with the above 5-day driver's 5-day driver's 7-day driver's 5-day driver's 7-day driver's 5-day driver's 8-day driver's 5-day driver's 6-day driver's 2-day driver's 5-day driver's 5-day driver's 8-day driver's 5-day driver's 5-day driver's 2-day driver's 5-day driver's 2-day driver's 5-day driver's 2-day driver's 2-day driver's 2-day driver's 5-day driver's 4-day driver's 7-day driver's 5-day driver's 2-day driver's 2-day driver's 8-day driver's 4 meters.

(2) The plaintiffs asserted as the cause of the claim in this case. The above accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the defendant's employee, and the non-party limited partnership company transferred the right to claim damages of KRW 433,900 suffered due to the damage of the above taxi caused by the above non-party's tort to the plaintiff 1. The defendant is the user of the non-party 2, who is responsible for compensating the above damages to the above plaintiff pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act. Further, the defendant asserted that the non-party 1 was liable for compensating for damages caused by the above truck operation under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act by the non-party 1's death, and the damage of KRW 4,939,43 won caused to the above non-party deceased's property damage and the damage of KRW 100,000 caused to the plaintiffs' parents. Thus, the plaintiff is not liable for damages due to the non-party 2's fault's fault or negligence.

(3) Therefore, even if the above taxi is discovered, it is difficult to take appropriate measures to prevent traffic accidents, such as collision with the above truck, because it was 8.4 meters or more in width at night, and it is clear that it was sufficient for the owner of the above truck to freely walk, and that the vehicle or person does not walk on the road normally, and that the non-party 2, who was driving the above truck on the right side of the road, did not have a duty of care to look at whether the above truck is seated on the side of the road, and that the non-party 2, who was driving on the right side of the road, did not have a duty of care to look at whether or not the above truck is seated on the side of the road. In addition, it is clear that the non-party 1, who was negligent in driving the above truck due to the non-party 1's failure to take proper measures to prevent traffic accidents such as the above truck's collision with the traffic regulations, and it was found that the vehicle or the non-party 1's duty of care was found to the above part of traffic.

(4) Therefore, the defendant is not liable for damages under the provisions of the former part of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act because all of the grounds for exemption from liability for motor vehicle damage under the same Act are proved, and there is no liability for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act premised on the premise that the above accident occurred due to the non-party 2's negligence. Thus, the defendant's claim on the premise that there is no grounds for all of the plaintiffs' claim on the premise that the defendant's claim on the premise of such liability is clear and dismissed. Since the judgment of the Commission has accepted part of the plaintiffs' claim on the basis of the different conclusion, it is decided as per the judgment of the court in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, the defendant's claim is dismissed by cancelling the part against the defendant's claim

Judges Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)