(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the driver's negligence by disregarding the signal at the intersection as 60% is insufficient;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the driver's negligence by disregarding the signal at the intersection as 60% is insufficient;

On the first ground for appeal

A driver of a motor vehicle who intends to pass through the intersection by using the intersection in compliance with the going signal that has been changed to a stop signal or to a stop signal. Thus, even if he/she is operating in compliance with the traffic signal, he/she is obliged to pay attention to prevent accidents and drive his/her motor vehicle with an attitude to prevent accidents and to prevent such accidents by looking at the movement of the motor vehicle where there is such a vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da8693 delivered on October 25, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the accident of this case where the victim's sea-line driving and the cargo truck owned by the defendant which the non-party 1 driven by the non-party 1 was at the intersection where the victim's sea-line driving conflict, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 did not find the above three-lanes of the above cargo truck from the left side of the above truck and did not enter the above intersection at a speed of about 70 km as soon as he did not neglect his duty of care in driving the above vehicle in accordance with the speed of the third straight line, even though the road was at a point where there was no obstacle in the front direction, the non-party 1 did not neglect his duty of care in driving the above vehicle in accordance with the direction of passage at the speed of the road. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the duty of care in driving the above vehicle without any negligence.

On the second ground for appeal

Even if the fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence in a damage compensation case is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, it shall not be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da32821 delivered on November 27, 192, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, on the basis of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident as stated in its reasoning, is negligent in driving the deceased, in violation of the signal, and even if the above deceased's negligence is not so serious to the extent that the defendant's responsibility is entirely exempted, the above deceased's negligence constitutes a serious cause of the accident as well as offsetting the negligence by recognizing the ratio of the negligence as 60%.

However, according to the records of this case, the point of accident in this case is the intersection of the third straight line in which traffic movement is frequent, and at the time of the accident, it is not recognized that the suspension signal was in the process of changing the above deceased to the stop signal or the stop signal to the go signal. Although the non-party 1, who is the driver of the vehicle seeking to cross the intersection in compliance with the signal, also has the duty of care to prevent the accident by looking at the two sides of the vehicle, and driving the vehicle, even if there is such a duty of care, considering the fact that the duty to observe the signal is the most fundamental and essential part of the operation of the vehicle, deeming the negligence of the above deceased who driven through the intersection as 60% is too low in light of the principle of equity, and thus, it is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

Therefore, there is 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)