KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Crossing the Center Line (중앙선) to Turn Left Still Counts as a “Center Line Violation” Accident, Even If the Pedestrian Wasn’t in the Opposite Lane (반대 차로)

By ,

The Supreme Court has ruled that a driver who crossed a solid center line to make a left turn, then struck a pedestrian at the entrance to a side street, can still be prosecuted under the center-line-violation exception to Korea’s traffic accident settlement privilege — even though the pedestrian was not standing in the oncoming lane the driver crossed into. Here are the key points.

Issue

Does the legal exception allowing prosecution for accidents caused by crossing the center line require that the victim be located in the opposite lane the driver entered — or does it apply whenever the center-line crossing was the direct cause of the accident, regardless of exactly where the collision occurred?

Background: The Settlement Privilege and Its Exception

  • Under Korea’s Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, most traffic accidents resulting in injury are not prosecuted where the driver has comprehensive insurance and reaches a settlement with the victim.
  • However, certain categories of serious driving violations are carved out as exceptions to this privilege — including accidents caused by crossing the center line — meaning prosecution can proceed regardless of insurance or settlement.

Facts

  • In June 2023, A was driving a truck on a single-lane-each-way road in Sejong City. A crossed a solid yellow center line to make a left turn and struck a pedestrian, who suffered multiple rib fractures and other injuries requiring approximately 28 weeks of treatment.

Lower Court Decisions

  • The trial court sentenced A to ten months of imprisonment without labor, suspended for two years, citing the severity of A’s negligence and the seriousness of the victim’s injuries, while crediting a settlement with the victim and A’s clean record for similar offenses.
  • The appellate court took a different view, finding insufficient proof that the accident qualified as either a center-line-violation accident or a failure to protect a pedestrian’s right of way. It reasoned that the accident fell outside the protective purpose of the center-line exception, since the collision occurred at the entrance to a side street rather than in the opposing lane proper. Because A’s vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance, the appellate court overturned the conviction and dismissed the prosecution.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court (Criminal Division 1, presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) reversed the appellate decision on May 8, 2026, and remanded to Daejeon District Court.
  • The court held that pedestrians who walk on the assumption that oncoming vehicles will not cross into their path are themselves protected road users — the danger created by a center-line crossing does not end neatly at the boundary of the opposing lane, and the pedestrian’s movement in this case was not unusual or unpredictable.
  • The court found no evidence that A had been forced to cross the center line out of unavoidable necessity — there was no obstacle requiring evasive action with no time to consider alternatives, and no external uncontrollable factor that compelled the left turn.
  • Given these facts, the appellate court’s conclusion that there was no causal link between the center-line crossing and the accident reflected a misunderstanding of the relevant legal principles.

Key Takeaways

  • The center-line-violation exception to Korea’s traffic settlement privilege applies based on whether crossing the line was the direct cause of the accident — not based on the precise physical location where the collision occurred relative to the opposing lane.
  • Pedestrians do not need to be standing in the lane the driver crossed into for the exception to apply. The protective scope extends to anyone whose safety is endangered by the driver’s unlawful lane departure, including those near intersections or side-street entrances.
  • The absence of any unavoidable necessity for crossing the center line — no sudden obstacle, no external compelling factor — supports a finding that the violation was the operative cause of the accident.
  • Comprehensive insurance coverage and a settlement with the victim do not shield a driver from prosecution where the underlying conduct falls within one of the statutory exceptions to the settlement privilege.

Why This Matters

This ruling clarifies the scope of one of the most frequently litigated exceptions to Korea’s traffic accident settlement privilege. For prosecutors and defense practitioners alike, it confirms that the legal test turns on causation between the center-line violation and the resulting harm, not on a narrow geographic reading of where the victim happened to be standing. For drivers, the decision reinforces that crossing a center line to execute a turn carries real criminal exposure if it results in injury — insurance and settlement will not provide protection where the violation itself caused the accident.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=222219&page=2&total=25168

Leave a comment