beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is that the change of the lane at the intersection is prohibited as a driver driving the intersection, and the location of the accident in this case is the D-exclusive lane, and thus, the Defendant’s right-hand from the vehicle signal red cannot constitute a violation of signal.
2. Determination
A. In a case where an intersection and crosswalk are installed in connection with the intersection, and a vehicle signal apparatus is installed only in the intersection, the vehicle signal apparatus shall be deemed to have given the vehicle an instruction not only to the vehicle, but also to the traffic of the crosswalk immediately preceding the intersection, and it shall not be deemed that there is no vehicle signal, etc. for the vehicle on the side of the crosswalk, on the ground that there is no vehicle subsidy, etc. on the side of the crosswalk, such as the walking, etc. on the crosswalk.
In such a case, the red light for the vehicle in such intersection shall be deemed to have ordered the duty of stop in front of the intersection and the crosswalk. In addition, in a case where the walking, etc. in the crosswalk is green, all the vehicles shall stop in the crosswalk stop line, and furthermore, shall not make a right-hand. However, if the walking, etc. in the crosswalk is changed to redly, and thus the nature as the crosswalk is lost, the vehicle before the right-hand may pass through the crosswalk and pass by without impeding the traffic of other vehicles and horses that proceed pursuant to the new subparagraph.
Therefore, in a case where the vehicle signal of an intersection is red and the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the intersection is green, if the driver of the vehicle does not stop in front of the above crosswalk and the result of the bodily injury caused by occupational negligence while the vehicle passes through the crosswalk, it constitutes “violation of signal” under Article 3(1) and proviso (2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8222 Decided July 28, 2011). A traffic accident is not caused by Defendant’s total negligence, but caused by the victim.