(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which has completed the hearing, on the ground that there is an error of law in exercising the right of tiny and incomplete hearing as to whether the authenticity of documentary evidence has been completed, although it appears that the official seal of the head of the same hospital affixed to the Gap evidence affixed to the site and the evidence No. 1 adopted as evidence are the same;

(b) If the scale of damage caused by a traffic accident falls short of the standards prescribed by the Regulations on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, a disposition to revoke the business license for the vehicle involved (negative)

A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which, in support of the plaintiff's assertion, stated that Gap evidence was prepared by the doctor of the same hospital as Eul evidence adopted as evidence, and the official seal of the head of the hospital affixed thereto appears to be the same as the official seal of the head of the hospital, the defendant closed the pleading as he responded to the site, and did not make any judgment as to the above evidence, and reversed it on the ground that the court below's judgment which did not make any judgment as to the authenticity of the evidence was erroneous in the exercise of the right to explanation

B. If the scale of damage caused by traffic accident falls short of the criteria for disposition stipulated in Article 3(2) of the Regulations on the Disposition, etc. of Revocation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, the revocation of the business license for the accident vehicle is illegal.

(a) Articles 126, 329, and 330 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act; and Article 3(2) of the Rules on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5870 delivered on October 16, 1990 (Gong1990, 2306)

Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu1419 delivered on May 9, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

1. The court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, a driver of the plaintiff company, concealed the urban bus stopped at the bus stop by negligence while driving a truck owned by the plaintiff, and caused 12 passengers on his name and fine for treatment to each of the non-party 2 and the non-party 5 who were on board the bus, respectively, for three weeks. The above traffic accident constitutes "the case where a large number of casualties is caused due to a serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and therefore, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the disposition of this case for this reason.

2. According to the records, the plaintiff's legal representative is only one person who actually received at least three weeks' treatment from among six victims of the above victims who suffered serious injury requiring three weeks' treatment due to traffic accident at the first date for pleading of the court below. One of the five remaining five persons did not receive medical treatment, and four persons submitted a written request for medical treatment for the above victims with the evidence Nos. 4 through 8-2 to prove the fact, and the defendant's legal representative responded to the establishment of each of the above documentary evidence and disputed the establishment of the appeal. However, each of the above documentary evidence was signed by the court below on the date for pleading of the above three weeks, and it is acknowledged that the above evidence No. 2-1 through No. 6 of the above evidence No. 2-6 (Dismissal), and each of the above plaintiffs' legal representatives could not be found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have existed at each of the above plaintiff's legal representative hospital.

In addition, when examining the contents of the evidence Nos. 2-1 to 6 of the above evidence Nos. 2-1 to 6 employed by the court below, each of the above diagnosis statements stating that "a about three (3) weeks of injury of the above victims is deemed to require medical treatment", but it is also stated that "the name of diagnosis and the period of medical treatment may be changed because it is the first diagnosis because of the first diagnosis" in the remarks column. Thus, in this case where the plaintiff's attorney is claiming this issue as above, it is doubtful whether the above evidence Nos. 2-1 to 6 can be determined that the above six victims suffered serious injury requiring medical treatment of more than three (3) weeks.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found that the above documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff (the claim for medical expenses) and whether the above documentary evidence was duly formed and whether the six victims were actually treated, without examining about how much they were actually treated, and that only the above written evidence Nos. 2-1 through 6, merely stated the first medical examination, the above victims suffered serious injury in need of three weeks of medical treatment due to the above traffic accident, shall not be deemed to have violated the rules of evidence or not, without neglecting the exercise of the right to request for the explanation, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Meanwhile, according to Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Regulations on the Disposition, etc. of Revocation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport, the term "serious" means a person who suffers from an injury requiring at least three weeks' medical treatment as a result of a doctor's diagnosis, and Article 2 subparagraph 6 (c) of the same Rules defining "serious traffic accident" and Article 2 subparagraph 6 (c) of the same Rules, which define the "serious traffic accident", stipulate that the whole cancellation of business license or business registration, partial cancellation of business license or business registration, and the disposition standards for cancellation of a license or registration of a non-compliant vehicle shall be set forth in Article 3 (2) [Attachment Table 3] subparagraph 2-e (e) of the same Rules, if the number of persons who suffered at least three weeks' medical treatment due to the above traffic accident exceeds that of the plaintiff, it is clear that the court below's disposition of this case is unlawful.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)