[손해배상][공1982.2.1.(673),136]
The duty of care to cross a crosswalk;
In the case where a pedestrian signal, etc. in a crosswalk is changed to a crossing signal, the driver neglected to verify the safety of the side from which the rest of the vehicle being able to pay attention to the signal, etc. is coming, and the driver's negligence is recognized by the person crossing the crosswalk, in the case of a collision with the vehicle passing through the crosswalk without putting his electric vehicle thereon.
Article 763 of the Civil Code, Article 10 of the Road Traffic Act
Nowon-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant
Attorney Park Jong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 80Na905 delivered on November 5, 1980
The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defendant's attorney are also examined.
On June 20, 1979.6. 16:30, the court below found that there was a collision between the bicycle and the non-party 7h 211, which used the above bicycle crossing on the north-west side of the four hundred knife 498 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.
However, since evidence duly adopted by the court below shows some of Gap evidence Nos. 13 (Verification Protocol) and Gap Nos. 16 and 17 (Examination Protocol), the court below did not reject the judgment, the accident site of this case is a road in the downtown where traffic signal, etc. for pedestrians are installed, and the non-party, who is the driver of the accident vehicle, operated the above vehicle on the second line of the above road, and was in close vicinity to the above crosswalk in order to drive the vehicle according to the driving signal, etc., the vehicle signal, etc. of this case cannot be seen as a stop signal, and the pedestrian signal, etc. of this case was tried to cross the bicycle without any change in the plaintiff's fault, and thus, it cannot be seen that there was an error in the court below's decision that there was no change in the plaintiff's fault on the front side of the above crosswalk, but there was no change in the plaintiff's fault on the part of the above pedestrian traffic, etc., but no change in the road traffic signal of this case on the front side of the above pedestrian.
Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)