beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as “3”; (b) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as “5”; and (c) the part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 3th
2. Additional determination
A. As to the assertion of non-performance of the concession driving obligation at the intersection, the Plaintiff asserts that there is negligence by not yield the course to the Defendant who has passed a narrow road.
All vehicles intending to enter an intersection where traffic is not controlled, if the width of the intersection is wider than that of the road where the vehicle is passing, shall first proceed along, and if there is any such vehicle, it shall yield the course to the said vehicle, and even if it is possible to enter the intersection first after arrival at the intersection at time, it shall not be permitted to pass ahead of the vehicle which intends to enter the intersection where the width is wider than that of the road where the vehicle is passing.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da21264 delivered on August 24, 199) According to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 13 and No. 3, the width of the road where freight cars in B pass by the Defendant is more larger than that of the road where the Defendant passed by the freight cars.
However, in the police investigation, the defendant stated that there was no vehicle driving across the intersection due to the lack of the vehicle driving across the intersection, and the road passing by B is the road bending on the left side at the intersection when viewed, and B is the road at the speed of 70km speed per hour due to the violation of the speed limit, and at the same time, the defendant's light rail is against the intersection while driving at the speed of 70km per hour due to the violation of the speed limit.