1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except where the plaintiffs added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, the court cites it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Additional judgment of the court of first instance

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant accident had not occurred if Defendant C had driven at a speed of 80 km per hour by observing the speed limit of 80 km, and that the instant accident was in violation of Defendant C’s duty to observe the speed limit and the duty to keep prior watch.

Judgment

1) The driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc., is sufficient to ensure that other vehicles are believed to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision, barring special circumstances. However, even if the driver of a vehicle driving in compliance with signal is a driver of a vehicle driving in compliance with the signal, if there are other vehicles already entering the intersection, other vehicles already entering the intersection are found to continue to enter the intersection immediately after the signal in the direction was changed to the stop signal in the course, or if special circumstances are anticipated to enter the intersection in violation of other signals, he/she shall have the duty of care to prevent accidents by making the movement of such vehicle and driving along the slowly. However, such duty of care is recognized in relation to the vehicle driving along the intersection immediately before and after the signal is changed, and it is recognized that there is no duty of care to take measures to prevent the occurrence of accidents by entering the intersection by no later than 10,500 after another vehicle is changed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 190Do19548, May 15, 1999).