1. Article 24 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, which was in force at the time of the accident in this case, provides that "emergency motor vehicles need not be stopped even in cases where they should be stopped in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any order issued under this Act," and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the definition of emergency motor vehicles shall be determined, in particular, the motor vehicles leading to the emergency motor vehicles for guard other than those as provided in paragraph (1), the motor vehicles leading to the national armed forces and United Nations military forces, and the motor vehicles carrying the person in need of life and the persons carrying the person in need of emergency transport, shall be regarded as emergency motor vehicles. It is natural that this provision only provides for the exclusion of the application of the provision on the duty of stop for emergency motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act, and it does not exclude the application of all the provisions on the method of vehicle traffic as provided in Chapter 3 of the Road Traffic Act,

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the first instance court: (a) around 21:20 on October 1, 1984, the defendant, who is a taxi driver for business use in Daegu 1F2814, operated the above taxi and passed the north west 2-dong, Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Scattering-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, the flown-ri-si (Seoul 1Da3725) which passed the above crossing from the right side of the defendant taxi's taxi running, caused injury to the victim of the passenger vehicle, such as the right bridge, which requires treatment for about 5 weeks; (b) The defendant, at the time of the above accident, did not appear to have been aware of the defendant's new traffic accident under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, which continued to go to the above 2nd.

3. However, as seen above, the operation of an emergency motor vehicle under Article 24 (2) of the Road Traffic Act merely provides that the emergency motor vehicle may not stop even in cases where it is required to stop pursuant to the provisions of this Act or any order issued under this Act, and it does not mean that the application of all mandatory provisions under the Road Traffic Act does not exclude the application of the provisions under the Road Traffic Act, nor does it mean that there is no provision that people or vehicles may continue to move along without stopping despite the passage of the vehicle, and therefore, if there is a vehicle or person crossing or walking in the proceeding direction, it should naturally stop.

4. Therefore, the court below should have judged the necessity of suspension by examining the situation of the intersection at the time of the location, etc. of the above damaged vehicle when the defendant was driving at the above intersection. However, the court below's decision that the defendant did not have a duty to stop due to the above provisions of the Road Traffic Act, and therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant did not have a duty to stop because of the above provisions of the Road Traffic Act cannot be exempted from criticism that misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 24 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, etc.,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The Supreme Court Decision 200Hun-day cannot be signed and sealed on an overseas business trip, which is held before the second day of the second day (Presiding Justice). The second day of the second day (Presiding Justice)