(a) The meaning judgment criteria for "serious traffic accidents" under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

(b) The legal nature and effect of the regulations concerning the disposition of cancellation, etc. of the business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act requires that many casualties be caused by a serious traffic accident. Thus, a traffic accident which causes more than two casualties based only on the number of casualties shall not be deemed to constitute a “serious traffic accident.” The criteria for determining “serious traffic accident” shall be determined by considering all the contents and results of the act, such as the degree of the tortfeasor’s negligence, the circumstances leading up to the victim’s negligence, the damage caused, and the impact on the general society.

B. The Rules on the Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Automobile Transport Business License under Article 3 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and 1982, Jul. 31, 1982) merely provides for the administrative agency's business management standards and disposition procedures concerning the revocation of automobile transport business license, etc., and merely provides for the administrative agency's business management rules within the administrative organization such as the administrative agency's business management guidelines and disposition procedures, etc., such as the administrative agency's administrative order, and there is no external difficulty of externally binding on the people or the court, and even if the disposition such as cancellation of automobile transport license violates the above rules, it cannot be said that the disposition is not appropriate for the issue of illegality, and whether

Rules concerning the disposition such as the cancellation of business license as referred to in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu1008 delivered on September 7, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's disposal of the driver's license for the plaintiff's 1982 12.3 and the non-party's disposal of the 2nd 4th 7th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th.

The rules on the disposition of cancellation, etc. of a business license under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Ordinance No. 724 of July 31, 1982) are in the form of Ordinance, but the nature and contents of the regulations are merely the fact that the administrative rules in the administrative agency such as the processing standards and disposition procedures concerning cancellation of a business license are stipulated. Thus, this is the fact that the Minister of Construction and Transportation has the nature of administrative orders inside the administrative organization, which was issued by the relevant administrative agency and employees, to establish guidelines for exercising his authority.

Therefore, the above rules cannot be said to be legitimate on the ground that the disposition, such as cancellation of a license, etc. for automobile transport business, violates the above rules, even if the disposition is in violation of the above rules, it does not lead to an illegal issue, nor can it be said that the disposition be legitimate. The legality of the disposition should not be determined depending on whether it conforms to the above rules, but should be determined based on whether it conforms to the provisions and purport of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

In light of the facts established by the court below, the circumstances of the instant traffic accident, the degree of negligence of drivers and victims, and the damage situations, can be seen as an ordinary traffic accident, and it does not seem to constitute a so-called “serious traffic accident” as stipulated in Article 31 subparag. 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act. On the premise that the above rules are binding upon a citizen and the court, the court below, solely on the premise that the above rules are binding on a person, shall consider the instant traffic accident as a “serious traffic accident” under Article 31 subparag. 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and held that it constitutes a cause for revocation of vehicle license, shall be deemed to constitute a “serious traffic accident” under Article 31 subparag. 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and thereby, by

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)