According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above part of the passenger vehicle to be a collision by occupational negligence, which led to the death of the above passenger vehicle by failing to see the above part of the passenger vehicle to turn left to the square, even if the vehicle proceeds from an automatic signal to the square in a broad square where the automatic signal is installed, and even if the vehicle proceeds from the straight-in signal with an automatic signal, it is a wide area where the signal is installed, and even if the signal is gone into the square, the vehicle's attitude leading to left to the square inside the intersection is well considered, even if the continuous signal comes to the passage signal, and the vehicle's attitude to turn to the square to the square to the open. However, the court below found the above part of the passenger vehicle to be a collision by negligent negligence in neglecting the speed of about 70 kilometers per hour pursuant to the straight-in signal and neglecting to turn to the right at the speed of the air.

However, unless there are special circumstances, the driver of a vehicle driving the intersection in which traffic is controlled by the signal, etc. according to green light shall be sufficient when other vehicles are believed to comply with traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident from smoke, in the case where other vehicles are expected to block the front of a vehicle in which the traffic is in violation of the signal and the right-hand turn to the left, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident accordingly. This is a change even if a vehicle enters the intersection from the straight signal to the center in order to turn to the left.

In this case, the defendant, like the court below's approval, entered the intersection of this case according to green light, and if he entered the intersection to turn to the left, and if he turn to the left, he would not turn to the left, the defendant would have a duty of care to say that he would not turn to the traffic regulations and that he would not turn to the crime before green light when he turns to the left, and that he would have a duty of care to take measures corresponding thereto, and the defendant's excessive operation is operated under the circumstances of trust above, as long as it falls under the violation of the Road Traffic Act, it does not appear that the continuous operation was caused by the accident of this case.

However, in order to be liable for the accident of this case to the defendant by occupational negligence, it should be found at the time when the Maliths violated traffic regulations and found it at the time when the defendant started to turn to the left, and even if the defendant failed to take the corresponding emergency measures, it should be the case where the defendant failed to find the left to turn to the left by neglecting the duty of safety confirmation of career, and for this purpose, the distance from the defendant's taxi at the time when the Maliths started to turn to the left and at that time the distance from the defendant's taxi at that time should be determined (as a result of the record, it is doubtful whether the conflict could not be avoided even if the defendant discovered the left to the left and taken the rapid action, etc., even if the defendant did not find in advance the speed and left turn to the left, without any deliberation and confirmation, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that affirmed the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant by occupational negligence, and there is a violation of the legal principles as to the duty of care affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)