Where a pedestrian signal on the crosswalk of a main road is red, the degree of duty of care of the driver of the motor vehicle driving along the intersection.

If pedestrian signals, etc. on crosswalks are displayed in red on the main road with frequent traffic, there is no duty of care to drive a motor vehicle in advance, even if the motor vehicle owner is a pedestrian, disregarding his/her red signal, and he/she has to do so.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Choi Byung-soo

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No638 delivered on July 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the circumstances of the accident of this case based on macro-Evidence as follows.

In other words, at the time of the accident of this case, the victim was found to have a conflict between the above accident bus that passed the above crosswalk by making the victim turn to the left at 30 km speed due to disregarding the above red signal in spite of the fact that the victim's malute and the non-indicted 2 Hobbs, in the drinking house near the Cheongyang-ri market, were divided into two Whobs, and the pedestrian signal, etc. in the location of the accident after the accident occurred at the crosswalk, and the vehicle's traffic was frequently frequent, the accident occurred in the front of the above accident bus that passed the above crosswalk, and the defendant discovered the victim's own mariness at the time of this case and immediately operated it, but did not avoid a conflict due to its progress. In light of the records, the above fact finding by the court below is just and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence.

If the facts are as above, if the pedestrian signals, etc. on the crosswalk are displayed redly, the pedestrian do not walk the way in violation of the signal, and on such crosswalk, the defendant is expected not to cross the road, and it cannot be viewed that the pedestrian is a duty of care to drive the road in advance, in disregarding the red signal, and it cannot be viewed that the pedestrian is a duty of care to drive the vehicle in advance. In addition, in the vicinity of the site of this case, the passage of the vehicle and the passage of the pedestrian are very complicated and the passage of the pedestrian is very complicated at the time of the accident, and even if it is anticipated that the pedestrian or the return of his/her home is done toward the roadway in order to board the taxi or bus at the time of the accident, even if the pedestrian is the red signal of the prohibition of crossing on the main road like this case, it does not require the driver to predict and substitute it until it exceeds the ordinary duty of care for the driver.

In the above purport, the court below is just in making a decision of not guilty on the ground that the defendant was not liable for negligence, and there is no illegality in the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)