손해배상(자)
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the allegations emphasized by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is disputing the rate of fault in the trial, and its assertion is not significantly different from that in the trial of the first instance.
In particular, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, while the taxi driven by the Defendant waiting to turn to the left in the crosswalk beyond the stop line, the Plaintiff, without confirming the entry of the vehicle driven by the Plaintiff, shall start the vehicle in the intersection and have violated the duty of care by starting the vehicle in good faith, so the Defendant’s negligence should be recognized.
However, according to the overall purport of 6 and 7 evidence Nos. 1-6 and 7, when the defendant's taxi receives a left-hand turn signal, the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection by passing the stop line in violation of the signal, and the accident of this case can be recognized that the part of the defendant's taxi driver's front seat and the part of the defendant's front front-hand hander of the plaintiff's vehicle in the intersection are faced with each other. In light of the signal system of the accident place and the signal system of the accident place, the health team, the evidence submitted alone could find the plaintiff's vehicle from another direction and conduct defensive driving when the defendant's taxi was trying to start with the signal.
It is insufficient to recognize that the collision would have been avoided if the signal atmosphere was maintained by either a stop line or a stop line. Generally, there is no duty of care to take measures to prevent the occurrence of an accident in advance because there was a vehicle that intends to pass through an intersection in violation of red signal, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant traffic accident caused the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence in violation of the signal.
3. The plaintiff's conclusion of this case.