According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff company operating freight trucking services caused five or more traffic accidents between January 19, 198 and October 2, 1989, which are held as 48 vehicles owned by the company, and the defendant did not report an accident under Article 17 of the Automobile Transport Business Act to the defendant on March 23, 1990, and the defendant did not report an accident under Article 31(1), 31-2(1), 17, and 3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 23(1)3 of the Automobile Transport Rules, which are not imposed with a penalty surcharge of 2,50,00 won per case, and determined that the defendant's provision of the above Article 17 of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that the defendant's duty to report an accident under Article 17 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall not be imposed with a penalty surcharge of 1,500,000 won, and that the above provision shall not be imposed with a penalty surcharge of 2.

However, Article 17 of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that a vehicle transport business operator shall report a prescribed accident without delay in case where he causes a whole-out, fire, or other serious accident of his automobile for business, and Article 31 (1) of the same Act provides that if a vehicle transport business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the suspension of his business for a specified period of not more than six months or cancel the whole or part of his license or registration, and stipulates that the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order the suspension of his business for a specified period of not more than six months or may cancel the whole or part of his license or registration. Thus, if a vehicle transport business operator fails to fulfill his duty to report an accident under this Act or any order issued under this Act, it falls under Article 31 (1) 1 of the same Act, and thus, he may impose a penalty in lieu of a disposition to suspend his business.

As the provision on the imposition of penalty surcharge under Article 31-2 (1) of the above Act stipulates that the provision on the imposition of penalty surcharge falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 31 (1), it cannot be applied only to the case where the fact that the occurrence of a serious traffic accident occurs, such as the opinion of the court below, (in the case of Article 31 (1) 5, it seems that it falls under Article 31 (1) 5).

Of course, Article 75 (1) 2 of the Act provides that an accident reporting duty under Article 17 of the Act shall be imposed a fine for negligence not exceeding a certain amount of money.

However, there is a provision on administrative fines, so it is not possible to exclude the provision on imposition of penalty under Article 31-2 (1) of the above Act.

This point is more so in light of the fact that in the application of the provisions of Article 76 to Article 75 of the above Act on fines for negligence, it is not possible to impose fines for negligence on an act on which penalty is imposed under Article 31-2.

Ultimately, the court below's erroneous interpretation of the relevant provisions, such as Articles 31-2 (1) and 31 (1) of the above Act, which decided that the defendant's disposition of imposition of the penalty surcharge of this case was without grounds of law, shall have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the grounds for appeal are with merit.

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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)