[자동차운송사업면허취소처분취소][공1984.12.15.(742),1859]
Whether making two passengers die by collision with the opposite vehicle in excess of the median line in the middle of broom way constitutes a reason for revocation of license as stipulated in Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.
If brooms go beyond the central separation line and 7-8 wheelss on the road, and 2 passengers die by collision with the two-way cargo vehicles driving along the two-way line on the road, it is reasonable to view that even if the accident was caused by negligence, even if the vehicle on the number omitted changed the vehicle to the vehicle line of the accident and was caused by rapid stop, it is reasonable to view that the accident falls under the time where many dead persons were dead due to serious traffic accidents as stipulated in Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.
Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act
Attorney Kim Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant
Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu715 delivered on March 21, 1984
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff, who had been operating the above 4m 7602 Posi in Seoul with a driver's license, was found to have caused two passengers by negligence in driving the above 11:40 on April 14, 1983, Yongsan-gu Seoul and caused a traffic accident on the front day of 271, on the ground that the non-party 1, who had been a driver of the above 1st Posi in Seoul with a driver's license, constitutes a case where many passengers were dead due to serious traffic accidents as stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act, and the non-party 1 was driving the above 1:40 on April 14, 1983 and operated the above 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1983.
However, according to the evidence cited by the court below, the point where the accident in this case occurred is limited to 70 kilometers of the driving speed of the vehicle, and the driver of the plaintiff-owned taxi operated by the non-party 1 goes beyond the central separation line at the time of the accident, and 7-8 km ice on the road, and two passengers on the left side of the motor vehicle operated by the non-party 40 kilometers along the second line of the two lanes of the road where ice 7-8 km on the road at the time of the accident can be seen as having been killed on the spot. If it was found that two passengers on board the front left side of the motor vehicle operated by the non-party 1 were dead on the road at night, and it was difficult to reduce the driving speed of the motor vehicle at the time as determined by the court below, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to have considerably maintained the distance from the motor vehicle vehicle, such as the approval of the court below, and the non-party 1's negligence on the part of the non-party 1, even if it did not reach the above 3 driver's gross traffic accident.
Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's revocation disposition of this case was unlawful cannot be exempted from misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and discretionary power. Thus, the ground of appeal No. 2 pointing this out is justified.
Therefore, the judgment 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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju
The original return of the Supreme Court judge cannot be signed and sealed as an overseas business trip.