1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the occurrence of the accident of this case by driving the truck (vehicle No. 1 omitted) owned by the defendant at the time of the accident of this case, and driving the truck (vehicle No. 2 omitted) owned by the non-party 2, who was driven by the non-party 2, toward the intersection of this case. Although the bus (vehicle No. 2 omitted) operated by the non-party 2, was proceeding toward the above intersection over the left-hand side of the right-hand side of the above truck, it is thought that the above non-party 1 stopped at the above intersection as it is not good for the time of the non-party 1 to pay off, and entered the above intersection as it is. In light of the records, comparison and review of the evidence employed by the court below, it is acceptable to find the above fact-finding of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law that found the facts erroneous.

2. On the second ground for appeal

All vehicles intending to enter an intersection in which the traffic control is not performed, shall not obstruct the course of other vehicles when they are already entering the intersection from other roads (Article 22(4) of the Road Traffic Act). However, all vehicles intending to enter the intersection in which the traffic control is not performed, if the width of the road is wider than that of the road on which the said vehicles are passing, shall slowly pass, and if there are other vehicles intending to enter the intersection from a road with a wide width, they shall yield their course to the said vehicle (Article 22(6) of the Road Traffic Act). When a vehicle intends to enter an intersection in which the traffic control is not performed on a narrow road, it shall first pass through the intersection, and even if such vehicle can first enter the intersection after arrival in time, it shall give priority to passing through the intersection on the road with a wide width (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 193Da1464, Apr. 16, 196). 194).

According to the records, the road where Nonparty 1 driven the above truck and driven the above truck was narrower than the road where Nonparty 2 driven and driven the above bus. However, the above non-party 1 viewed the above non-party 2 driver's vehicle to have a three-lane side at the right side of the moving direction at the time of the intersection of this case, but it was not about 40 meters prior to the intersection of this case, but about that of the above non-party 2 driver's vehicle, and it was erroneous that the vehicle was parked and entered the above intersection. Thus, the above non-party 1, who tried to enter the above intersection of narrow width, should have been able to easily examine whether the above vehicle was about to enter the above intersection of this case, and even if the above vehicle was trying to enter the above intersection of this case, it did not have been negligent by failing to enter the above intersection of this case. Thus, even if it did not intend to enter the above intersection of this case, it cannot be said that the defendant did not have been negligent by failing to reach the above intersection of this case.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's defense of exemption, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the cross-section of vehicles such as the theory of lawsuit.

The precedent of party members cited by the theory of lawsuit is different from the case, and it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case. There is no reason for the argument.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)