(a) Whether a driver who first enters the intersection has a duty of care to make sure that he/she has to drive his/her motor vehicle by predicting and preparing for him/her to enter the intersection at a speed higher than his/her running speed;

B. Whether a driver who enters an intersection where traffic is not controlled and it is impossible to confirm the left and right of the driver has a duty of care to anticipate a driver who has entered the intersection to violate traffic laws and regulations, in the first instance, regardless of the order of priority in traffic, and the right and right of the driver who has entered the intersection is safe by examining such a duty of care (negative)

A. In a situation in which a driver is able to pass through the intersection without an accident, if he/she first enters the intersection, he/she cannot be deemed to be negligent unless there are special circumstances. A driver who first enters the intersection is deemed to have trusted and driven by a victim of a narrow road crossinging the intersection that he/she withdraws appropriate actions according to traffic regulations. Thus, barring special circumstances, the victim has no duty of care to make sure that he/she is able to drive a motor vehicle at a speed lower than his/her speed and be able to fit with his/her own motor vehicle.

B. A motor vehicle has the duty of care to safely enter and pass the intersection by temporarily stopping in the intersection where traffic is not controlled, regardless of the priority order of traffic, and where it is impossible to confirm the right and the right and the right, and by checking well the right and the right and the right and the right of the intersection where traffic is not controlled (Article 27 of the Road Traffic Act), but in the case of entering the intersection where traffic is not controlled, it cannot be said that there is a duty of care to drive a motor vehicle by predicting the possibility of violating the traffic regulations of subordinate motor vehicles for traffic as long as it first enters the intersection and is safe by examining the right and the right and the right of the intersection.

(a)Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, article 268 of the Criminal Code, article 22 of the Road Traffic Act, article 27 of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do1288 delivered on August 23, 1983 (Gong1983,1451) 91Da11551 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991,1912), Supreme Court Decision 91Da42883 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong192,1288)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo-gu

Daejeon District Court Decision 91No1235 delivered on March 27, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal filed by a defense counsel and the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed by the defendant are also considered.

1. Review of records

A. On June 8, 191, the first instance court found that the Defendant driven a car at around 10:10 on June 10, 1991, and proceeded 20 km a speed of 20 km in the front of the Aeronautical Center located in the Dao-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, and that there is no signal signal, and thus, the Defendant was guilty of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, by negligent negligence in carrying out the said intersection without any duty of care in advance, and by negligent negligence in driving the said intersection, while neglecting the duty of care to prevent any accident that may occur, and by negligent in driving the said intersection from running the said intersection on the left side of the said intersection (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”), the front wheels part of the said vehicle with the left side of the said vehicle and caused injury to the victim due to the shock.

B. The court below held that the accident of this case occurred because the defendant's entry road is larger than the width of the road where the victim entered and is located on the right side of the road where the victim passed, and thus, the defendant is the first priority in passing the intersection of this case. The defendant temporarily stops before entering the intersection of this case and makes a stop before entering the intersection of this case, and after examining whether there is a vehicle passing through the intersection of this case, the defendant entered the intersection of this case, and even though the victim first entered the intersection of this case, the victim is disregarding the method of passing the intersection and speeded, and the accident of this case occurred because the vehicle of this case conflicts with the part of the motor vehicle left side of the driver's vehicle in front of the driver's drive, without the defendant's negligence. The traffic accident of this case is

C. According to various evidences of Si, the traffic accident of this case is acknowledged as having occurred since the defendant first entered the road with the right of priority passing through the intersection of this case, even though the defendant had entered the intersection, without disregarding the method of passing through the intersection, and the defendant confirmed that the traffic accident of this case occurred by entering the intersection of this case was done slowly or temporarily before entering the intersection of this case, and where the defendant passed through the intersection of this case, the defendant's first time at the police and the prosecutor's office found the traffic accident of this case's driving, which occurred from the left side of the defendant's direction before entering the intersection of this case's intersection of this case's traffic accident, but without any negligence, the defendant's negligence did not err in entering the intersection of this case's traffic accident of this case, but the defendant's first time stop the traffic accident before entering the intersection of this case's traffic accident of this case, and it rejected the defendant's credibility of the defendant's statement and the defendant's negligence on the ground that there was no error in doing so.

2. Judgment of party members

A. However, as recognized by the lower court, if the front front front front part of the vehicle and the front part of the vehicle are shocked, it cannot be deemed that the vehicle received the front front part of the vehicle and the vehicle, barring any other circumstances. The lower court should have an explanation by clarifying the detailed situation of the collision between the vehicle and the vehicle and the front part of the vehicle, etc. in order to recognize that the vehicle, as the front front part of the vehicle that proceeds in the future, has been driven by the vehicle and the vehicle, should not be deemed to have received the vehicle, barring any other circumstances.

The judgment of the court below in this part shall not contain any error of law such as the lack of reason or incomplete hearing.

B. Furthermore, according to the statement of the interrogation protocol on the victim in the preparation of the judicial police assistant, according to the circumstance that the victim proceeded at a speed of 30 km per hour, and in light of the situation that the defendant first entered the intersection of this case and the conflict point, it can be seen that the victim entered the intersection at a speed above the defendant, and the victim testified that the first instance court did not stop once.

C. As acknowledged by the court below, if the defendant enters the intersection of this case where traffic control is not performed, the victim shall not interfere with the passage of the vehicle driving by the defendant under Article 22 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, and according to the records, the road where the defendant is driving is located on the right side of the road where the defendant is driving, and the width of the road where the defendant is 9 meters wide above the width of the road driving by the victim (5.8 meters according to the result of the first instance examination, the width of the road is 5.8 meters in accordance with the result of the first instance examination, and the width of the road is covered by the sidewalk block). In this case, it is evident that the defendant has the preferential right of passage to the intersection of this case even under Article 22

D. According to the above circumstances, if the defendant, in a situation where the defendant can pass through the intersection without an accident, and entered the intersection first, unless there are special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that he was negligent, and the defendant, who first entered the intersection, shall be deemed that the victim passing through the narrow road crossing trusted and drives the road that he would withdraw appropriate actions in accordance with traffic regulations. Thus, barring special circumstances, the victim shall not have a duty of care to pay due attention to driving in preparation for and predicting that the victim would come to the intersection at a speed lower than the defendant's speed so that he would come to fit with the defendant's driver's car (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 77Do409, Mar. 8, 197; 83Do1288, Aug. 23, 1983; 91Da151, Jun. 11, 191; 91Da4283, Mar. 10, 1992).

E. Of course, a motor vehicle has the duty of care to temporarily stop in the intersection where traffic is not controlled regardless of the order of priority in traffic and it is impossible to confirm the right and the right and the right, and to safely enter and pass the intersection by checking well the right and the right and the right and the right and the right of the intersection where traffic is not controlled (Article 27 of the Road Traffic Act). However, as long as the traffic is entered the intersection, it cannot be said that there is a duty of care to make a driver by predicting the possibility of violating the traffic regulations of subordinate motor vehicles for traffic, unless it is judged that the traffic is safe by taking into account the right and the right and the right and the right and the right

F. As one of the grounds recognized by the Defendant’s negligence, the lower court stated that the Defendant’s first statement was no longer reliable when entering the intersection by finding out the victim’s right of way from the left side of the road before entering the intersection, but it is possible to pass the intersection without permission. However, the Defendant’s first statement is no longer reliable since it was no longer possible for the Defendant to go through the intersection before entering the intersection, and the Defendant continued to go through the intersection by making it difficult for the Defendant to go through the intersection without permission, and even if it was impossible for him to go through the intersection by making it difficult for him to view that there was no need for the Defendant to go through the intersection, and even if it was impossible for him to go through the intersection by making it difficult for him to view that the Defendant’s first statement was no longer reliable. However, according to the evidence list, the Defendant’s suspect interrogation of the Defendant to go through the intersection before entering the intersection and making it difficult for him to use it as evidence, and even if so, the Defendant continued to go through the intersection by making it difficult for him to do so.

G. The court below held that not only the defendant's access to the intersection but also the defendant has a duty of care to continue driving and temporarily stop the movement of the Otobba, and that the accident of this case occurred because he neglected to do so. However, it is difficult to find the reason why the speed of 20 km per hour recognized by the court below is a breach of duty at the time of 20 km, and it is also impossible to find the defendant's access to a narrow intersection such as this case as in this case, and it is difficult to find that it was a situation to the extent that it could prevent collision even if it temporarily stop and temporarily stop, and it should be presumed that there was a circumstance that such situation was in order to recognize it as the court below and there was a reason that it can be viewed as a negligence.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cross-section traffic method under the Road Traffic Act, or in the incomplete hearing or incomplete reasoning, and there is a reason to discuss this point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded without examining the different points of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)