[사업면허취소처분취소][공2000.6.15.(108),1319]
[1] The standard for determining whether the case constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act
[2] The case holding that where a driver of a high-speed bus stops the vehicle in the front of the vehicle without discovering that the vehicle was stopped in the front of the vehicle, and caused an accident where one person dies and four persons died and suffered serious injuries, it constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act
[1] Whether a certain traffic accident constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), shall be determined on the basis of whether it is serious to the extent that it is deemed inappropriate in light of the public interest purpose of the same Act to allow a motor vehicle transport business operator to continue to operate a transport business or to possess a license or registration as it is, such as degree of negligence on the part of the person causing the traffic accident, negligence on the part of the victim, circumstance of the occurrence of the accident, specific damage situations, influence of the accident on the general society, etc.
[2] The case holding that in a case where a driver of a high-speed bus has caused an accident where one person dies and four persons have suffered a serious injury as a consequence of breaking the previous four automobiles without discovering that the vehicle was stopped by the vehicle's seat, it constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act.
[1] Article 31 (1) 5 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997) (see Article 76 (1) 3 of the current Passenger Transport Service Act), Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 31 (1) 5 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997) (see Article 76 (1) 3 of the current Passenger Transport Service Act), Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3546 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2300), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4846 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 992), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4089 delivered on December 13, 1991 (Gong1992, 537), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4819 delivered on June 26, 1992 (Gong192, 2302), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14084 delivered on September 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 807), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu914927 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong196, 197).
Han High-speed Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jae- Jae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The Minister of Construction and Transportation
Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu24575 delivered on February 25, 1998
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by law firms).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the accident of this case was caused by one or more gross negligence of the above non-party while the non-party was driving a high speed bus No. 70b4817, Apr. 29, 1996, which was owned by the plaintiff, and going to Dong Seoul at Daejeon, and that the non-party did not discover that the vehicle of this case No. 1ter6451, ELT was parked at a point 41.3 km from the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right.
Whether a certain traffic accident constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997), shall be determined on the basis of whether it is serious to the extent deemed inappropriate in light of the public interest purpose of the said Act to allow a motor vehicle transport business operator to continue to operate a transport business or to hold a license or registration as it is, in consideration of such legal principles and all the circumstances indicated in the records of this case, the court below's above measures are deemed justifiable, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to serious traffic accidents under the former Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act, or discretionary authority as to deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, as pointed out in the grounds for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)