Whether a violation of signal occurs if it interferes with a follow-up vehicle that proceeds from the same direction in green light at a place where a non-protective circuit sign is marked (negative)

Where there is a green light at a place where the right turn is marked at a non-protective left turn, and if it obstructs another vehicle running on the opposite side with the signal in compliance with the new subparagraph, the responsibility for the violation of the signal shall be borne, but if it interferes with the latter vehicle in compliance with the proceeding signal in the same direction, it shall not be held liable for the violation of the signal, apart from other breach of duty, such as breach of the duty of care at the time of the change of the vehicle, etc. (this case is the case where the taxi of the defendant driving of the second line of the second line on the second line of the road is left left at the same direction, and the driver of the defendant driving of the second line on the second line of the second line on

Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 95No7854 delivered on February 13, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the defendant's act does not constitute a violation of Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, in full view of the provisions of "the kind and meaning of the signal No. 320" and "the signal No. 6. 320" and "the signal No. 713-2" of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act and "the kind and meaning indicated by signal No. 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act" as stated in Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, if there is a green light at a place where the left or right-hand left-hand turn is obstructed by other vehicles coming behind under the signal No. 1, but in other cases, the defendant's act does not constitute a violation of Article 3 (1) and (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it does not constitute a violation of the duty of care when changing the vehicle in this case.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)