(a) Criteria for determining whether a “serious traffic accident” is referred to in Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

(b) The case holding that the revocation of the license for the motor vehicle transport business against the taxi involved in an accident where three persons die and are injured by two persons due to an accident that neglected the duty of care on the expressway;

A. Whether it is a serious traffic accident as provided in Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined according to the degree of driver's negligence, damage situations, accident circumstance, victim's negligence, impact on the general society, etc. after comprehensive consideration.

(b) The case holding that in light of all the circumstances such as the duty of taxi drivers on the expressway to stop the front vehicle, the duty of continuous driving on the road, the duty of due diligence due to the proper operation of the steering steering system, the traffic accident caused by the proper operation of the steering steering system, the driver's negligence, the degree of the driver's negligence, the result of the death of three passengers and the injury of two passengers, and the result of the injury, which adversely affected road traffic order, it cannot be deemed that the accident is a serious traffic accident as prescribed by the same Act, and the revocation of the driver's license for the transport business for the taxi in the accident is not beyond the discretionary authority.

Article 31(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2444 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1720), 90Nu3546 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2300), 92Nu4819 delivered on June 26, 1992 (Gong192, 2302), 93Nu19764 delivered on June 10, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1967)

Maximum Country

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu3264 delivered on June 3, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In light of the records, although non-party 1, the driver of 16948, Busan, which is the plaintiff's owner, operated the above vehicle at around 05:0 on October 31, 1992, the non-party 1, who is the driver of ice 16948, operated the above vehicle at the speed of about 100 kilometers from Seoul to Busan, the Gyeongcheon-do Gyeongnam-do Gyeongnam-gun, which is the speed of about 100 kilometers in the speed of the city. While the driver operated the above vehicle at the speed of about 372.2 kilometers-do, he was found to have been driving the non-party 7ta 1858 cargo on the front line, the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's owner, did not know the situation of the vehicle's driving, and did not know the remaining part of the cargo to the left-hand side without considering the remaining part of the passenger's driving at the speed of the vehicle, the court below did not err in finding the remaining part of the above cargo.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The issue of whether the accident is a serious traffic accident under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined by considering the degree of negligence of the driver, damage caused by the accident, circumstances of the accident, the victim's negligence, and impacts on the general society. In light of the circumstances of the accident of this case recognized above, the accident of this case is an accident caused by the non-party 1, who is a taxi driver of the plaintiff, neglected the driver's duty of the preceding vehicle, the duty of continuous operation in the direction, the duty to avoid collision due to the proper operation of the steering system of the steering system, and the degree of negligence of the driver. Thus, the accident of this case is serious traffic accidents under the above law, considering all circumstances, such as the death of three passengers and two injured passengers, the result of the accident is significant, and there is no other influence on road traffic order. The defendant's revocation of the above accident of this case shall not be deemed to be beyond the scope of discretion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to serious traffic accidents, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)