(a) Traffic priority in passing through an intersection where traffic is not controlled;

(b)a case recognizing all the fruits of both parties, in the case of a conflict between a passenger car that enters a line from a narrow road and an ozone road that enters a wide area of the width;

(a) All vehicles intending to enter an intersection, in which the traffic control is not performed, shall, in case where there is another vehicle intending to enter the intersection from a road having a wider width, yield the course to such other vehicle, and even if it is possible to enter the intersection first at the intersection in time, it shall not pass ahead of the vehicle intending to enter the intersection in which the width is wider, even if it arrives first at the intersection, and even if it is possible to enter the intersection first at the time;

(b)a case recognizing all the fruits of both parties, in the case of a conflict between a passenger car that entered a line from a narrow road and a road that enters a wide area of the width;

Article 22(4)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 22(6)(b) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do1288 delivered on April 23, 1983 (Gong1983,1451) 84Do185 delivered on April 24, 1984 (Gong1984,948) 93Da1466 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 193)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No5328 delivered on April 20, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are also examined.

All vehicles intending to enter an intersection where traffic is not controlled, if there is another vehicle seeking to enter the intersection from the road where the width is wider than that of the road where the said vehicle passes, shall yield the course to the said vehicle, and even if it is possible to enter the intersection first at the time to enter the intersection, the vehicle shall not pass ahead of the vehicle seeking to enter the intersection where the width is wider (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da1466, Nov. 26, 1993).

In the instant case where Defendant 1, who had entered the intersection where the crossing of this case is narrow, had a collision between the small-scale car driving by Defendant 1, who had entered the intersection through a road with a wide width of the width of the intersection, the lower court acknowledged that Defendant 2 had a duty of care to prevent the collision between Defendant 2, at the point of suspension prior to the passage of the intersection of this case, the maximum temporary point of Defendant 2, along the intersection where Defendant 2 had driven, is above the crosswalk 68 meters away from the above stop line, and that at the time of the accident, there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the passage of the two vehicles at the time of the accident, on the ground that Defendant 1 had a duty of care to prevent the collision between the two vehicles at the time of the accident and the speed of the two vehicles at the time of the accident, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the passage of the road at the time of the above stop of the intersection, and thus, it cannot be seen that Defendant 2 had been negligent in driving the intersection.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)