This case is that a traffic accident which causes four death in collision with a fire engine and causes many casualties due to a serious traffic accident under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

In the case of a fire engine operated by a driver of a car for business purpose in an urgent way to extinguish fire, and caused four deaths by collision between the fire engine and the intersection and the intersection, even though the traffic signal in the direction of the driver's operation is straighten and the fire engine's traffic signal was suspended to the intersection in the direction of the fire engine, the above fire engine has turned on the warning light while sounding the siren at a distance of 400 meters after the lapse of 6 prices for other fire engines. In addition, if the above collision accident occurred while only the driver of the car for business purpose stops through the intersection without a stop from entering the intersection even though all other vehicles have stopped without entering the intersection, the above traffic accident is caused by the gross negligence of the driver of the vehicle for business purpose, and it constitutes a case where many casualties have been caused due to a serious traffic accident as stipulated in Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu216 delivered on February 19, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (including the grounds of supplementary appeal).

In light of the records, the process of fact-finding and evidence preparation conducted by the court below as to the circumstances of the traffic accident in this case where a fire engine, which had been operated by the deceased non-party 1 with two passengers aboard and operated by the deceased non-party 2 in an emergency exit for the purpose of extinguishing fire, conflict with the intersection at the time of the original adjudication and caused the death of four people, is legitimate, and there is no error of law in the incomplete trial or the preparation of evidence in violation of the rule of experience as pointed out in the petition for appeal.

In addition, as determined by the court below, although the situation at the time was the traffic signal to the intersection in the direction of the operation of the fire engine by Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2 was the traffic signal to the intersection in the direction of the operation of the fire engine, the above fire engine has been operating a siren at a distance of 400 meters after 6 prices of other fire engines and 400 meters, and the light light, etc. has been turned on. In addition, although other vehicles stop without entering the intersection in spite of the straight-line signal, only the above non-party 1 only the above non-party 1 was driving through the intersection without stopping from the intersection before entering the intersection, if the collision accident at issue occurred, the above non-party 1 only the above non-party 1 was the driver of the fire engine, and the traffic accident at the time of the original trial was caused by the non-party 1's gross negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a serious error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the traffic accident under Article 35 of the Act.

In the end, 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)