A. Criteria for determining whether a traffic accident constitutes a “serious traffic accident” under Article 31(1)5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

(b) The case holding that where three passengers, such as articles and passengers, etc. of vans, die as a result of a collision with vans listed on the opposite lane as a bus getting out of the ice iceway, and where six passengers were seriously injured, it constitutes "serious traffic accident" as prescribed by the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Whether a certain traffic accident constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined depending on whether it is serious to such extent that it is deemed inappropriate in light of the public interest achieved by the same Act to allow a motor vehicle transport business operator to continue the transport business or to hold a license or registration as it is, rather than by examining the contents and result of the traffic accident, such as the degree of negligence of the person causing the traffic accident, negligence on the part of the victim, circumstances where the accident occurred, specific damage situations caused by the accident, influence on the general society, etc.

B. On the left-hand side of the ice bus, which was turned down from the ice iceway, and stopped on the two straight lines above the center line to the left-hand side, thereby getting the front right-hand side of the ice 1 and the two straight lines going up with the two straight lines, and then falling under the front side of the said express bus, 3 passengers, etc., such as passengers and passengers, etc., of the van are killed, and where six passengers were seriously injured, it constitutes “serious traffic accident” as stipulated in Article 31(1)5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu20978 delivered on April 19, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, as a driver of the vehicle without fault of the non-party 1 for 10 years, operated the non-party 6 U.S.-2308 bus on Jan. 14, 1994, and the non-party 1, as a driver of the vehicle without fault of the non-party 1, operated the non-party 27 high-speed bus in Seoul at the beginning of the accident, and operated the two lanes near the site of the accident at a speed of 30km above the speed of the accident, and it was difficult for the non-party 1 to take measures to avoid any collision with the non-party 2, as the non-party 1, the non-party 1, as a driver of the vehicle without fault of the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, as a driver of the vehicle without fault of the non-party 2, who was at a speed of 30 km away from the front of the accident, to ensure the safety of the vehicle.

Whether a certain traffic accident constitutes a "serious traffic accident" as provided in 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 that the said Act seeks to achieve (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu4819, Jun. 26, 1992; 93Nu19764, Jun. 10, 1994; 93Nu19764, Jun. 10, 199). In light of such legal principles and all the circumstances indicated in the records of this case, the above measures of the court below shall be deemed justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Automobile Transport Business Act or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to discretionary power, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)