Whether a driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection in accordance with signals has a duty of care to expect other vehicles to proceed in violation of signals (negative)

Except in extenuating circumstances, the driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection in which traffic is controlled by signal, etc., is believed to comply with traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision. Barring special circumstances, the driver of another vehicle is not obliged to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance by predicting that other vehicles violate the signal and driving along one’s course to prevent the occurrence of the accident. The driver of the vehicle driving along an intersection in which traffic is controlled by the signal, etc. does not change on the ground that the vehicle is an intersection with a large traffic volume during the time zone.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 22 of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Do2579 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 777), Supreme Court Decision 98Da14252, 14269 delivered on June 12, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 186), Supreme Court Decision 98Do1854 delivered on September 22, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2635)

Twin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cultural Taxi Corporation

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na58893 delivered on May 13, 1999

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul District Court.

The court below acknowledged that, at around 06:50 on January 18, 1996, Nonparty 1 driven a selel owned by the defendant and proceeded on the front side of the information center located in Goyang-gu, Young-si with the speed of about 60km long from the original side to the right side of the road at the speed of 50km, by disregarding the stop signal, and by negligence entering the middle side of the 4-lane road from the ridge to the right side of the road at the speed of 60km long, the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle at the speed of 5-lane long prior to the above intersection, while driving the 5-lane taxi and driving the above intersection to the right side of the traffic network at the speed of the above intersection, and thus, the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle at the speed of the above 1-way stop signal at the speed of the above 5-lane road to the left side of the road and caused the accident to go through the road at the speed of 5 months long as it did not reach the left side signal.

Examining the above part of the judgment of the court below, the court below seems to have judged the negligence of the relocation border on the premise that Nonparty 1 is a driver who has already entered the intersection as a driver who has already entered the intersection in order to start with the direct promotion signal, starting from the alteration of the relocation signals to the direct promotion signal, and deeming Nonparty 1 as a driver who has entered the intersection immediately after the alteration to the direct promotion signal.

However, according to Gap evidence 7-3, 22, 26, and 27 as adopted by the court below, and Gap evidence 7-5, 6, 12, 14, 19, 23, and 24 of Gap evidence 7, which the court below rejected, the relocation border confirmed that the signal in the direction prior to the arrival of the intersection was left left-hand turn signal, and continued to follow the direction signal prior to the arrival of the intersection, and continued to change the signal in the direction of the movement to the right-hand turn signal through yellow signal, and in such a case, the non-party 1 continued to follow the direction signal prior to the arrival of the intersection; the non-party 1 entered the intersection without disregarding that the signal in the direction of the movement was the stop signal; the distance from the intersection to the point of collision by the non-party 1 to the intersection cannot be seen to have changed directly to the driver’s speed signal prior to the arrival; and the non-party 1 cannot be seen to have changed to the direction signal immediately after the collision.

In addition, the driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc., is believed to comply with traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision, barring special circumstances, and is not obliged to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance by predicting that other vehicles violate the signal and driving their course in order to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance. It does not change to the intersection where the traffic volume in the course of the course is not high.

Nevertheless, the court below held that: (a) the business start from which the migration signals will be changed to the straighten signal from the straighten line to the straighten line, and even if Nonparty 1 had already entered the intersection, it was negligent by failing to properly examine the straighten line and trusting only the long speed signal; and (b) the driver driving along the going signal is expected to have a vehicle passing through the intersection in violation of the signal and expected to have a vehicle passing through the intersection at any time; and (c) accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence and misapprehending the legal principles on the driver’s duty of care driving the intersection in accordance with the signals, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)