Whether the above accident constitutes a serious traffic accident as stipulated in Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act in a case where the main agent, who is bound on a broom road, has caused death two persons or one injured person, such as intrusion of the central line, collision with the opposite vehicle, etc. (affirmative)

The serious traffic accident stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act refers to the accident that is deemed unfair to continue the transport business or to retain the license, taking into account the occurrence of the traffic accident, the situation of the traffic accident, the degree of the fault of the perpetrator, the damage caused by the damage, and other various circumstances. Therefore, if the bus driver caused the death of two or one injured, due to the collision between the truck which the driver is driving in the opposite opposite line by the central line, the driver's negligence is very large if the accident caused the accident, and the damage caused by the accident is more severe than the ordinary traffic accident, the accident constitutes a serious traffic accident as stipulated in the above Act.

Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu300 Decided October 23, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

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

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu640 decided May 31, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are also examined.

1. According to the provisions of Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, in a case where a vehicle transport business operator causes many casualties due to a serious traffic accident or frequent traffic accident, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may order a suspension of business for a fixed period of not more than 6 months or revoke a license in whole or in part. The above serious traffic accident refers to an accident to the extent that it is deemed unfair to continue the transport business or to hold a license, taking into account the occurrence of the traffic accident, the circumstances such as the situation of the occurrence of the traffic accident, the perpetrator's negligence, the degree of fault of the victim, damage

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when Nonparty 1, who is the driver of the plaintiff company, operated the bus of this case on April 14, 1983 and operated the light fisheries road, went to the six-way line of the crosswalk 50 meters right ahead of the Guro-gu 3 Dong 592, and the road was cut off at the time, and the road was flow to the city. Thus, it is necessary to reduce the speed and thoroughly go to the city of the front road, while neglecting to do so, it goes to the speed of 70 kilometers a speed exceeding 60 kilometers a speed of 70 kilometers a speed, and the court below did not accept the above fact that Nonparty 1, who was the driver of the plaintiff company of this case, was able to immediately find this son, such as the non-party 1, who was the driver of the plaintiff company, and was on the right side of the above road, but it did not go to the left, and it did not go to the right side of the above vehicle, and it did not reach the front line with the victim's 2880 tons.

If the circumstances of the accident are as above, even if there is negligence on the part of the victim's non-party 1's driving, who is the driver of the plaintiff company, even though the victim's non-party 1's driving is not considered to be gross, and the damage caused by the above accident by two persons and one person's injury will also be more than ordinary traffic accidents. Therefore, in light of these various circumstances, the above accident falls under the category of the serious traffic accident as stipulated in Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act. Thus, the court below's decision to this purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the above provision, or by violating the precedents of the party members.

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)