1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2012, the Plaintiff, while driving the Baba around 13:45 on September 13:45, 2012, went in violation of the signal to the intersection in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at the direction of the Ministry of National Defense, while driving in violation of the signal to the direction, and collision with C Driving D (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”) driven along five lanes from the south side of the mountain basin (hereinafter “the instant accident”), suffered injury, such as a light-wise transfusion.

B. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the defendant vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Even if the plaintiff violated the plaintiff's alleged Orala signal, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case, since he was negligent by entering the intersection of Cdo yellow or red signal and thus violated the signal.

B. The driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by the traffic signal, etc., is sufficient to ensure that other vehicles are also believed to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision, barring special circumstances, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent accidents in advance, as expected to be done when other vehicles violate the signal and walk along their career, or when one is expected to drive along with the traffic signal.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 7 and 9 through 13 merely entered the intersection with yellow or red signal in violation of the signal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 11, C may recognize the fact of having entered the intersection according to the progress signal). Therefore, C cannot be said to be negligent.