[1] The case holding that each side of the first-way lane with a width of about 0.4 meters cannot be seen as an intersection with an intersection wider than a narrow length

[2] The method of passing along an intersection where no signal, etc. is installed

[1] The case holding that Article 22 (4) of the Road Traffic Act should not apply to the road where the road where the victim proceeded and the perpetrator proceeded with the same way as the first lane, and the width of the road where the victim actually proceeded is 6.6 meters, and even if the width of the road where the perpetrator proceeded is 7 meters, it shall be deemed that the road is the intersection with the narrow length of the narrow breadth, and instead, Article 22 (6) of the Road Traffic Act should be applied

[2] According to Article 22(4) of the Road Traffic Act, all vehicles intending to enter the intersection in which traffic is not controlled shall not obstruct the passage of another vehicle when there are vehicles already entering the intersection from another road. Thus, in the case of a vehicle having entered the intersection, other drivers should not interfere with the passage of the vehicle, and barring special circumstances, the first driver of the vehicle having entered the intersection should not interfere with the passage of the vehicle. Thus, the driver of the vehicle having entered the intersection is not obliged to take measures to avoid it in preparation for the vehicle having a vehicle going through the intersection in violation of the traffic method under the Road Traffic Act.

[1] Article 22 (4), (5), and (6) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 22 (4), (5), (6), and (7) of the Road Traffic Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da42883 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1288), Supreme Court Decision 92Do934 delivered on August 18, 1992 (Gong1992, 2792), Supreme Court Decision 95Da11832 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2760)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Lee Han-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na34626 delivered on October 23, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's surface of the Seoul (vehicle No. 1 omitted)'s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "accident")'s surface, which was operated by the non-party 1's non-party 1', and the non-party 3's surface on the back side of the driver's seat, so long as the accident occurred at the intersection, which is the place of the accident in this case, the right and the right and the right are turned down at about 10 km and the right and the right and the right and the right are changed to the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and duty of the non-party 4's road No. 1's road No. 201's. m.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 22 (4) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "All vehicles intending to enter an intersection where no traffic is controlled shall not obstruct the course of other vehicles if they are already entering the intersection." Paragraph (5) provides that "in the case of paragraph (4), if the same vehicle intends to enter the intersection at the same time, it shall yield its way to the right-hand road." Paragraph (6) of the same Article provides that "All vehicles intending to enter an intersection where traffic is not controlled, shall slow down if the width of the road is wider than that of the road where the vehicle passes, and it shall yield its way to the vehicle if there is another vehicle intending to enter the intersection where the width is wider than that of the vehicle." Paragraph (7) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "(6) of the Road Traffic Act shall not apply to vehicles that pass through the intersection where the width is wider than 6 meters, and it shall not apply to 20 meters of the road at the same time as the one on which the accident occurred and the other 4 meters of the road at the same time."

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant 4, who first entered the above intersection, should not interfere with the passage of the vehicle involved in the accident as long as the vehicle involved in the defendant's driver's accident first enters the above intersection and passes through the above intersection, barring any special circumstance, shall not be deemed to have a duty of care to expect the non-party 4 to obstruct the passage of the vehicle in violation of the crossing method under the Road Traffic Act and to take measures to cope with this, and it shall not be deemed that there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles as to compensation for damages and liability for reimbursement due to a mistake in the evaluation of negligence. The grounds for appeal pointing this out shall not

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)