1. The measure of the court below

A. The facts admitted by the court below after compiling the adopted evidence are as follows.

(1) 소외 1은 2000. 6. 11. 01:50경 수원시 팔달구 인계동에 있는 동수원병원 앞 교차로(이하 '이 사건 교차로'라 한다)에서 피고 회사의 피보험차량인 경기 85구1542호 2.5t 화물차를 운전하여 동수원에서 신갈 쪽으로 편도 4차로 중 1차로로 진행하다가 유턴을 하던 중, 마침 신갈에서 동수원 쪽으로 마주 오던 소외 2 운전의 화성 파2167호 500㏄ 오토바이와 충돌하였는데, 소외 2는 위 사고로 인한 중증뇌손상 등으로 사망하였다.

(2) The intersection of this case is the place where the four lines along the eth line on the ethal side of the new intersection, and the road in the vicinity of the emergency room of the ethic hospital in the ethical apartment on the left side of the ethical apartment, and the intersection of this case is the intersection, and the two directions of the intersection are three-dimensional signal lights with the non-protective coordinates mark attached, and the four-dimensional signal lights are installed, respectively, at both directions of the four lanes.

(3) On the fourth-lane road along the same orchard, there are no separate signs, such as left turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn, etc., on the 4-breadth signal apparatus at the front side.

(4) The signal system of the instant intersection is the order of two direction straight lines (1 minute 50 seconds), both direction stop (40 seconds) and left turn (20 seconds) in the case of the instant four-way road. In the case of a small road, the two direction stop, two direction straight lines (20 seconds before the non-protection line) and the two direction stop in conjunction with the signal system of the said four-way road, and the four-way road is the order of the two direction stop, and the pedestrian signal apparatus at the crosswalk installed in the intersection along the trucking direction is changed to a green light during the two-way stop signal, and pedestrians walk the crosswalk.

(5) Nonparty 2, while driving the above Oba in the instant intersection without a driver’s license, even though the signal of the lane was cut off at the speed above the right-hand turn of the taxi at the right-hand turn at the speed of 30°1828, the leba-ray driver’s 30°1828 at the right-hand side of the taxi at the right-hand side of the front direction. Nonparty 1, while Nonparty 2, while Nonparty 2, while driving the above Obaba in the instant intersection without a driver’s license, there was a conflict between the front part of the above freight driver’s seat and the front part of the above Oba-ray.

(6) The point of the collision is about 15.2 meters away from the starting point of the U.S. permissible section (total 24m) to the intersection of the cargo crossing, and approximately 5.3m away from the other intersection in front of the stop line.

(7) At the time of the collision, the front wheels of the cargo was over the median line, but the rear wheels was not yet over the median line, and the trace of the front right side of the cargo due to the collision began on the center line.

B. Based on the above facts, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that there was no negligence on the part of the non-party 1 on the part of the defendant, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no duty of care to drive the vehicle by predicting that the driver of the other vehicle has entered the intersection by violating the signal, and that the driver had no duty of care to avoid the collision if it was found or could be found that the other vehicle had been travelling in violation of the signal. However, at the time of the accident in this case, the non-party 1 was proceeding to the right-hand left-hand turn at the point of the accident at the time of the accident, and it is reasonable to deem that the driver started the accident at the point of the accident at the time of the signal signal at the front line. Thus, it seems that the non-party 1 was likely to prevent the accident of this case until the front line was changed to the right-hand left-hand turn or that it was possible for the driver of the vehicle to do so before the internship.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The court below is justified in finding that the accident in this case occurred while the accident in this case was driven by Nonparty 2 while driving the above Oba, and it entered the intersection without disregarding the signal signal of the lane, and Nonparty 1 changed the vehicle signal at the right-hand turn from the lane to the right-hand left-hand turn on the 4th line road, and then the vehicle signal at the front side was changed to red, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence by failing to exhaust all deliberations as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. However, if the signal apparatus installed at the intersection where traffic is controlled by signal apparatus, and a safety sign allowing a U-turn is not attached to the left-hand turn signal or pedestrian signalton at the intersection located on the front side, the driver of a vehicle who intends to provide a U-turn in such an intersection may provide a U-turn if it is unlikely to interfere with the normal traffic of pedestrians or other vehicles and horses in accordance with the traffic method provided for in Article 16(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the signal apparatus installed at the front side shall not be changed to the left-hand turn signal, and therefore, if the traffic signal at the front side is changed to the red signal, and if it is found that there is no concern that the normal traffic of other vehicles and horses is obstructed in the U-turn area immediately after the occurrence of the traffic accident, it is sufficient that the driver of a U-turn is able to take proper measures to avoid collision with the traffic signal at the intersection immediately after the occurrence of the traffic accident, and if it is deemed that there is no special reason to have been another driver in front of the vehicle and keep the traffic signal at the front.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, as long as it can be recognized that the signal of the signal apparatus installed at the intersection on the new side in Dongwon has been changed to red lights, and that the regular vehicle has started to walk after examining whether or not the traffic of the motor vehicle and the normal vehicle has been driven in the Uton permitted zone on the fourth line road, barring any other special circumstances, it is sufficient to believe that other motor vehicles on the opposite side are also engaged in complying 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 in advance by an ombudsman by entering and leaving the intersection in violation of the stop signal. In such a case, in order to hold Nonparty 1 liable for the above collision, it should be recognized on the premise that the other motor vehicle has already entered the said intersection or has entered the intersection immediately after it was changed.

However, according to the records, while the accident occurred, while the leaples directly observed the traffic accident in this case at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident, the leaples and the west scam are proceeding along the 4-lane road from the scam to the same orchard, the accident is moving from the scam to the stop signal at the intersection, and the signal of the signal apparatus at the front of the crosswalk was stopped on the one-lane stop in front of the crosswalk, and even after about 1 to 2 to 3 minutes, Non-Party 2 made a statement to the stop signal at a very rapid speed (after about 1 to 2 minutes, the speed limit attached to the above scamba has ceased to stop without disregarding the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-off signal of the above cab, it was found that the speed limit attached to the above scamba has changed to the intersection signal at the time immediately after the passage to the intersection of this case, and that the passage signal was changed to the stop or stop signal.

Nevertheless, without examining the above facts, the court below held that the non-party 1 was negligent in driving with respect to the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the driver's duty of care and exemption from liability of the driver who is displayed on the part of the signal apparatus in the Uton permitted zone installed on the front side of the intersection where traffic is controlled by the signal apparatus, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)