(a) Non-performance of duty of disclosure and defect of cancellation of license pursuant to Article 7 (3) of the Regulations on Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

(b) A case which constitutes a serious traffic accident under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Article 7(3) of the Rules on the Disposition, etc. of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs) intends to provide convenience to the other party of an administrative disposition in taking the procedure of administrative appeal against the disposition, and even if the disposition agency did not fulfill the duty of disclosure under the above provisions, it can be extended due to the extended period of time for administrative appeal and thus, it cannot be said that any defects are involved in the administrative disposition subject to an administrative appeal.

B. In a case where an urban bus driver discovered a motor vehicle which was speeded along the median line in excess of the speed limit on the road where snow melts off, and immediately takes measures to set it to the right, but failed to avoid it, and caused a death of three and a large number of damages to two, it constitutes a serious traffic accident under Article 31(1)5 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act.

Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Young-young (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu66 delivered on May 6, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

1. In the case of the cancellation of the business license of this case against the plaintiff who is the automobile transport business operator, the theory that the defendant can bring a lawsuit against the plaintiff when notifying the disposition pursuant to Article 7 (3) of the Rules on the Disposition of Cancellation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport) and in the case of filing a lawsuit, the ruling agency, the transit procedure and the period of time should be notified, but the notification should be notified. Thus, the above disposition of the cancellation of the license of the plaintiff is illegal, or the provision on the notification procedure of the plaintiff's principal is intended to provide convenience because the other party to the administrative disposition does not fulfill the duty of notification under the above provision, and even if the disposition agency did not fulfill the duty of notification under the above provisions, it is possible to extend the period of the administrative appeal, and it is not accompanied by any defect in the administrative disposition subject

2. According to the contents of the instant traffic accident acknowledged by the court below, the non-party, the driver of the city bus belonging to the Plaintiff company, was found to be in excess of the speed of 70 kilometers per hour over the road at the point of accident where the snow melted off the road at a speed exceeding the speed of 80 kilometers per hour, and he was found to be late and immediately faced with the speed of 70 kilometers, but he did not avoid it, but suffered a large amount of damages for the vehicle, including the driver of the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle, etc., died of the car, and suffered a large amount of damages to the two. Accordingly, the court below determined that the accident constitutes a serious traffic accident under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act in relation to the Defendant's revocation of the license, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of support for the Defendant's revocation of the license. It is justified in the conclusion that the Defendant's revocation of the business license of this case does not deviate from the scope of discretion.

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 Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)