[2] The case holding that the above / [1] constitutes a "serious traffic accident"

[2] The case holding that a large truck loaded with the cargo constitutes a "large traffic accident" as provided by Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which caused the death of two persons, two injuries, and two damaged vehicles

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the company of the plaintiff, was driving the above vehicle on August 31, 1994 at around 09:20 Busan 7Ah 8312 (hereinafter referred to as the "accident vehicle") and was driving one lane at the point of 397.2 km on the expressway at the time of Kim Sea, on the ground that the non-party 2, who was driving the vehicle of this case, failed to enter the expressway of Busan 8Da6188 (hereinafter referred to as the " damaged vehicle"), failed to remove the damaged vehicle's speed from the vehicle of this case on the ground that the non-party 1, who was the driver of the above 3rd vehicle, failed to drive the above 3rd vehicle on the way that the non-party 2 was deprived of the above damaged vehicle's traffic accident, and the non-party 2 tried to remove the damaged vehicle's speed by changing the vehicle of this case to the same vehicle of this case, and caused the accident to the non-party 1.

2. Whether a certain traffic accident constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act 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 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4819 delivered on June 26, 1992, etc.) by examining the contents and results of the traffic accident, such as the degree of negligence of the person who caused the traffic accident, damage situations, and the impact of the accident on the general society, not the traffic accident that may occur normally, but it is necessary to have the automobile transport business operator continue to operate the transport business or to have the license or registration obtained (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu48

However, according to the facts and records established by the court below, the above non-party 1 only obstructed the front of the damaged vehicle returned to the two-lane on the ground that the damaged vehicle entered the expressway while the damaged vehicle has entered the expressway, and it cannot be said that the accident occurred without reducing speed for again one-laned vehicle to prevent the damaged vehicle from entering the two-lane, and that the degree of negligence is less than that of the above accident. In addition, even if the direct cause of the traffic accident in this case is not necessarily limited to the second-lane entrance of the damaged vehicle, the above non-party 1 responded to the above large vehicle using the large vehicle, and it also seems that the above non-party 1 continued to cause considerable damage to the driver of the traffic accident in light of the fact that the traffic accident in this case caused the death of the two-lane vehicle, the injury of the two-lane vehicle and the repair cost of the vehicle, and the driver of the traffic accident in this case caused considerable damage to the driver of the vehicle, it should be considered that the accident in this case's gross negligence caused the accident.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to serious traffic accidents, since the accident of this case does not constitute a serious traffic accident, and thus, it is justified to point this out.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)