1. According to the provisions of Article 13-2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 5405 of Aug. 30, 1997), the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc., when it is particularly necessary to ensure the smooth flow of route buses, may temporarily use the bus exclusive lanes on the roads after consultation with the commissioner of a district police agency or the chief of a police station, and vehicles and horses other than route buses shall not use the bus exclusive lanes on the above cases: Provided, That the same shall not apply to inevitable cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; accordingly, the former Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15531 of Dec. 6, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that the cases where an emergency motor vehicle is operated for emergency purposes of its own (title 1); where a taxi temporarily passes on the roads to the extent that it does not impede the passage of route buses (title 2); or where it is impossible to use the exclusive lanes on the roads unless it is damaged or damaged by other inevitable reasons.

2. Examining the above relevant statutes and records, even if the bus exclusive lanes installed pursuant to the above provisions are divided into the real line section and the point section, the same applies to any of the cases, and therefore, the passage of ordinary vehicles, other than route buses, etc. shall not be permitted except as provided in Article 6-3 of the Enforcement Decree. Even if the point section does not provide for the meaning of the real line section and the point section at the time of the instant case, the bus exclusive lanes for the purpose of a regular bus exclusive lane are deemed to have the character of a regular bus. Thus, it is reasonable to view that, in the case of a de facto vessel pursuant to Article 3(2) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the change of course is prohibited, and in the case of a de facto vessel, the change of course is permitted.

In addition, the entry of ordinary vehicles into the bus exclusive lane in order to turn to the right side or to the intersection may be deemed to fall under the case where the exclusive lane is not possible due to other inevitable obstacles as stipulated in Article 6-3 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree. However, in such a case, it is necessary to enter the moving line, which is the moving line where the change of course can be changed, unless there are other unavoidable circumstances.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff entered the bus exclusive lanes to pass through the bus exclusive lanes, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the bus exclusive lanes can enter the general cases, not in any inevitable situation, and decided that the plaintiff's act of this case violates the bus exclusive lanes traffic methods in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the method of passage of bus exclusive lanes as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Where a vehicle operating a road with a bus exclusive lanes does not enter the bus exclusive lanes in order to turn to the right side or to the intersection, entering the bus exclusive lanes installed on the road to turn to the right side falls under the case where it is impossible to pass only the exclusive bus lanes due to other inevitable obstacles as stipulated in subparagraph 3 of Article 6-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and where the point of the bus exclusive lanes and the real line sections are repeated, it is necessary to enter the bus exclusive lanes installed on the road to turn to the right side and the point near the road to turn to the right side.

The court below is just in holding that, in order for the plaintiff to make a right-way at the Hansan Intersection as stated in the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff entered the occupied section of a point that was not about 52 meters from the point that did not reach the end of the 52m through the intersection, and passed through the bus exclusive road. The plaintiff recognized the fact that the plaintiff moved to the above intersection and operated it to E after the control of the case, etc., and as long as the plaintiff first entered the bus exclusive road at a point that was not the least right-way point, the plaintiff's act of driving it to the point that was not the right-way point, and even if the plaintiff was controlled at the middle point before the arrival of the intersection, the plaintiff violated the bus exclusive road traffic method by itself, and there is no error of law as to the meaning of passage, etc. as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. In addition, the court below is sufficient to determine the violation of the method of passage of the bus exclusive lanes of this case based on the road situation at the time when the plaintiff was controlled, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the violation of the plaintiff was changed due to the change of the road situation, or that there was a tort against the plaintiff. Thus, even if the court below did not determine the method of passage according to the changed road situation after the control of this case, it cannot be deemed that there was a omission of judgment.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)