(a) The meaning of "serious traffic accident" as provided in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and the criteria for judgment thereof;

(b) Legal nature of the rules concerning the disposition, such as the revocation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Whether it constitutes a serious traffic accident under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined by comprehensively considering the contents and result of the act, such as the degree of negligence of the person who caused the traffic accident, negligence of the victim, circumstances of the accident, damage situations, and influence on the general society, and considering whether such a traffic accident is not an ordinary traffic accident, but an automobile transport business entity can be deemed to be a "serious traffic accident" to the extent that it is deemed unreasonable to have the vehicle transport business entity continue the transport business or hold the license.

B. The rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act have the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization issued by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the administrative agencies and employees under the direction of exercising their authority, and cannot be deemed to have the nature of legal orders. Thus, even if a disposition such as cancellation, etc. of a business license is in violation of the above rules, it cannot be said that the disposition is legitimate on the ground that it is not in violation of the above rules, nor is it in conformity with the standards set forth in the above rules. The legality of the disposition shall be determined not according to the above rules, but

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu472 delivered on December 11, 1984, 86Nu735 delivered on April 14, 1987

Seo Young Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and Kim Jong-chul

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1240 decided May 28, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, when a vehicle transport business operator has caused many casualties due to a serious traffic accident or frequent traffic accident under subparagraph 5, the term "if a vehicle transport business operator has caused a lot of casualties". The issue of whether a certain traffic accident constitutes "serious traffic accident" refers to the degree of negligence of a person who caused a traffic accident, negligence of a victim, circumstance of an accident, damage situations, influence on the general society, etc. In comprehensive consideration of the contents and result of the act, it is not a traffic accident that may normally occur, but a vehicle transport business operator shall determine whether a vehicle transport business operator is "serious traffic accident" to the extent that it is deemed unfair to have the relevant administrative agency and employees continue to operate a transport business or hold a license as it is, and the rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under the above Article have the nature of an internal administrative order issued by the relevant administrative agency and employees with the nature of an order of laws and regulations. Therefore, the issue of whether a disposition, such as cancellation of a vehicle transport business license, etc. violates the above rules and thus, shall not be justified.

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1, who is the driver of the above non-party 1, 9755 of the plaintiff company, was on board the non-party 1, who was a passenger, and the non-party 2 was on night, and the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 5's own road, was on the non-party 2's own road at the time of the accident, and the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 2's own road at the time of the accident, and the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 2's own road at the time of the accident, was not on the non-party 1's own road at the time of the accident, and the non-party 2's non-party 1, who was on the non-party 5's own road, and the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 2's own part of the second-party 1, who was on the non-party 3's own road.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)