In case where the driver of a vehicle driving on a crosswalk with no pedestrian traffic, etc. is driving along the vehicle crossing signal along the adjacent intersection and pays a traffic accident, whether the driver shall be held liable for violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk (affirmative)

Even if a crosswalk is not installed for pedestrians, the crosswalk falls under the crosswalk as provided in the Road Traffic Act, so long as the crosswalk is marked, and if the driver of a vehicle driving the crosswalk violates the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk as provided in Article 24 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and causes a traffic accident, the driver shall be held liable for violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk as provided in Article 3 (2) (proviso) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and even if the crosswalk is installed adjacent to the intersection and the vehicle signal, etc. in the intersection is in progress, the vehicle signal, etc. can proceed along the intersection, and it does not mean that the obligation to protect pedestrians who walk the crosswalk is not installed, and it does not change.

Article 24(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 3(2)6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2003No114 delivered on June 4, 2003

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: the Defendant driving a sport (vehicle number omitted); the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 20:40 on May 8, 2002, while driving the vehicle at around 20:1, one of the two-lanes in front of the Sinan-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-re-re-de-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts comprehensively based on the adopted evidence: the defendant was driving the above vehicle at the time while driving it on one lane; and the vehicle signal at the time was remarkably delayed; the accident area was without pedestrian signal on the crosswalk adjacent to the Ne-distance Intersection; the vehicle signal at the time of the accident was installed only on the intersection; the vehicle signal at the time of the accident was a yellow signal for the vehicle in the direction of the defendant; the victim was in violation of the duty to maintain the traffic safety at the crosswalk 2000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

3. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

Even if a crosswalk is not installed for pedestrians, the crosswalk falls under the crosswalk as provided in the Road Traffic Act, so long as the crosswalk is marked, and if the driver of the vehicle driving the crosswalk violates the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk as provided in Article 24 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and causes a traffic accident, the driver shall be held responsible for violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk as provided in Article 3 (2) (proviso) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and even if the crosswalk is installed adjacent to the intersection and the vehicle signal, etc. in the intersection is in progress, the vehicle signal, etc. can proceed along the intersection in such a case, and it does not mean that the obligation to protect pedestrians who walk the crosswalk is not installed, and it does not mean that the vehicle signal, etc. should not be different.

However, the court below dismissed the prosecution of this case, which held that even if the defendant shocked the victim who passed the crosswalk where the pedestrian crossing of this case is not installed, as long as he proceeded in accordance with the road crossing signal for the crossing crossing, so long as the defendant is not responsible for violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the above Supreme Court Decision 97Do1835 delivered on October 10, 1997, which is cited by the court below, is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk, and since the vehicle's traffic signals are installed in the intersection, and the vehicle traffic signals are installed in the neighboring crosswalk, but without the vehicle aid, etc. on the part of the pedestrian crossing, if the vehicle is driven along the crosswalk while being in a green condition, the traffic signals on the intersection road of this case shall be viewed as driving the vehicle in violation of the road signal system and the traffic signals on the crosswalk just before the intersection.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)