Whether a business owner who is responsible for supervision falls under the grounds for cancellation of a transportation business license where a driver of a motor vehicle has caused an accident and escaped without providing relief to the injured (affirmative)

A motor vehicle transport business operator should always take the best of preventing the danger of life, body, and property of citizens that may be caused by the operation of a vehicle as one of social responsibilities, so if the driver always has to supervise the accident in order to meet the relief of the victim due to the federal and accident, and if the driver negligent in doing so and runs a serious criminal act that the driver runs away without providing relief to the injured, it shall not constitute an act contrary to public welfare. Therefore, it is a reason to revoke the license of the motor vehicle transport business.

Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Rule 40

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu59 delivered on March 16, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1, a driver of the dispute in this case, driven the above vehicle around 23:00 on June 4, 1981, and the non-party 1, a driver of the vehicle in this case, went away without taking necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the 4 weeks of medical treatment while entering the road in the front of the king-gun, the non-party 1, a speed difference of 80 meters at a speed, and without taking necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the 4 weeks of medical treatment, and that the defendant's above accident occurred. The court below found that the "the non-party 1's order or the order or direction issued by the competent authority should be faithfully performed" of the plaintiff's license for the vehicle in this case, or "the suspension or cancellation of the business license if necessary for the public interest" of this case constitutes a ground for cancellation of the above license, and it does not constitute a so-called "non-party 1's order or cancellation of part of the license for the above vehicle in this case."

However, as the highest person who may cause the danger of life, body, and property of the citizen caused by the operation of the vehicle should always be one of the social responsibilities, if the driver is negligent in supervising the driver so that the driver can only take care of the victim's rescue due to the unfashion of the accident and the accident, and if the driver runs a serious criminal act that causes an accident but does not rescue the injured, it does not constitute an act contrary to public welfare, and thus, it constitutes a ground for cancellation of the license under Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act. Accordingly, according to Article 31 subparagraph 2-2 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act, the non-party 1, who did not reject the judgment of the court below, went to the hospital after causing the accident in this case, was loaded the victim into the accident in this case and went to the hospital, and it can be known that the accident occurred at the scene of the accident, and thus, it cannot be said that the act is extremely disadvantageous to the public welfare and welfare of the vehicle in this case.

Therefore, the court below should have judged whether or not the plaintiff suffered loss due to the defendant's revocation disposition should have judged whether or not the plaintiff abused discretion by comparing the necessity of the public interest as seen above and the damages therefrom. However, the court below judged that the plaintiff's revocation disposition of this case was abuse of discretionary power by making it difficult to see that there is a need for the public interest to revoke the license strictly, and on the contrary, the plaintiff's loss caused by this objection is a huge amount of loss. In this regard, the court below held that the plaintiff's revocation disposition of this case was abuse of discretionary power, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young