Whether a driver of a vehicle who first enters the intersection with on-and-off yellow lights has a duty of care to yield the course to another vehicle running along the intersection from the left side of the direction of the proceeding to the intersection, or to drive slowly, temporarily, or temporarily or temporarily at the intersection (negative)

If the driver of a cargo truck enters the intersection where yellow lights are on-and-off, then more than 10 meters away from the left side of the proceeding direction to the intersection, or if the driver of the truck was found to have been going to the intersection prior to the entry of the intersection, he does not have a duty of care to yield the course to the above-mentioned passenger vehicles, but rather, he does not have a duty of care to promptly leave the intersection so as not to obstruct traffic unless he enters the intersection, and does not have a duty of care to go through or temporarily stop on the intersection, and it cannot be deemed that the driver of the above truck who first enters the intersection has a duty of care to sound the light light to attract the attention of the driver of the above truck after entering the intersection.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 22 of the Road Traffic Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The transfer area to the attorney-at-law of the Youngjin Korea Shipping Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na51516 delivered on March 7, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

1. The court below cited the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except the rejection of testimony by the witness 1 of the court below in entering the reasoning of the judgment. The court of first instance determined that the non-party witness 1, who was a driver of Vone Star, who was subscribed to comprehensive insurance for the plaintiff company,, proceeded at a speed of 6.4 meters wide at a speed, and neglected to perform the duty of care to check the progress of the vehicle at a distance of 7.4 meters wide and at a distance of 4 meters, the non-party 1's large truck owned by the defendant company was not able to confirm the safety of the vehicle at a speed of 40 kilometers high from the right side of the vehicle, and that the above vehicle was not constructed at the intersection without any other traffic signal at the speed of 11.5 meters long to the left side without any other traffic signal at the point of the intersection, and that there was no other traffic signal at the time of the above collision.

2. Examining and comparing the relevant evidence with the record, the court below's aforementioned fact finding is just and acceptable (Article 6-13 of the evidence No. 6 of the court below, in which the original trial was employed, stated that the speed at which the accident occurred at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the above 40 kilometers, but the court below's rejection of the testimony by the witness 1 of the court below to the same purport can be deemed to have rejected the above evidence), and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misapprehending the judgment of the evidence or by finding facts without evidence as pointed out in the court below's theory

3. A driver who drives an intersection with on-and-off yellow lights has a duty of care to enter the intersection while paying attention to other traffic, but the court below determined that the non-party 1, the driver of the above truck, cannot be deemed to have neglected such duty of care in entering the intersection. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of incomplete deliberation, determination, omission of reason, or failure in the reasoning, as pointed out in the judgment of the court below. If the driver of the above truck enters the intersection more than 10 meters above the combined car or above, as recognized by the court below, if the driver of the above truck enters the intersection, he cannot be deemed to have committed an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to a temporary suspension, or by exceeding the duty of care to make the above passenger enter the intersection more than the above combined truck difficult, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the driver cannot be deemed to have committed an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to a temporary suspension without any interference with the traffic.

4. Ultimately, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)