Whether there is a duty of care to expect another vehicle to enter the intersection when another vehicle newly enters the intersection in violation of the signal after the signal has been changed to the driver of the vehicle passing through the intersection (negative)

Except in extenuating circumstances, the driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc. shall also have the duty of care to comply with traffic regulations and to take appropriate measures to avoid collision, and to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance by predicting that other vehicles violate the signal and proceeding along the course of the vehicle until they reach the intersection. However, even if the driver of a vehicle driving through green light is a driver of a vehicle who already enters the intersection, he/she shall have the duty of care to take measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident by taking into account whether there are other vehicles already entering the intersection and driving the vehicle if there is such vehicle. However, such duty of care is recognized in relation to the vehicle already entering the intersection before the signal is changed, and, barring any special circumstance, it is not necessary to take measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident by taking measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident.

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

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1493 delivered on January 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 386), Supreme Court Decision 92Do2579 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 777), Supreme Court Decision 94Da8693 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3084), Supreme Court Decision 95Da29369 delivered on October 13, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3774)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Daegu High Court Decision 97Na998, 7395 delivered on February 13, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the court below's determination that the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period against the judgment of the court of first instance due to a cause not attributable to the defendant is legitimate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the appeal for subsequent completion. The arguments are without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party's negligence on April 22, 196 that the above vehicle's (vehicle registration number 1 omitted) was operated by the non-party, and the non-party's vehicle's (vehicle registration number 2 omitted) went to the live market at the same time, and the non-party's negligence did not discover that the above vehicle's vehicle's 2,00000 square through the 1st place of the 2,0000 square road and caused injury to the defendant by using the above vehicle's liver and the above liver of the above liver vehicle's liver of the above vehicle's liver of the above liver of the accident caused by the above liver traffic accident, and thus, the non-party's negligence did not change the above vehicle's liver traffic signal at the above time when the above vehicle's liver of the above liver road was found to have been at the above liver.

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

The driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by signal lights is green light shall be sufficient if other vehicles believe that they will observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of accidents in advance. Of course, even if the driver of a vehicle driving through green light is a driver of a vehicle who already enters the intersection, the driver has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents by looking at the situation where another vehicle already enters the intersection, and driving the vehicle with the attitude to prevent the occurrence of accidents by walking, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da8693, Oct. 25, 1994; 95Da29369, Oct. 13, 195; 2000; 200Da86969, Oct. 13, 1995).

In this case, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the above non-party entered the intersection in order to wait for the left-hand turn at the edge of the above intersection, and the defendant entered the intersection in order to make a left-hand turn. Although the above intersection has already completed and suspended the above intersection, the defendant did not neglect the above straight-hand signal, and entered the above intersection in accordance with the above intersection. Thus, the above non-party is not obliged to take a duty of care to prevent the accident by taking into account the movement of the vehicles already entering the intersection, and driving the vehicle with an attitude to prevent the accident by driving, etc., separate from the fact that the above non-party had a duty of care to take measures to prevent the accident by predicting that the defendant's straight-wing vehicle is the original by violating the above signal, barring any special circumstances. Furthermore, according to the records, it is difficult to see that the accident site is an intersection of the above three-lane road, and it is difficult to see that the above non-party is the non-party's fault at the time of the accident.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the driver's duty of care in the intersection with signal lights, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the above Nonparty was negligent in driving with respect to the occurrence of the accident of this case. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

3. 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 by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)