Whether it constitutes a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act, which is to avoid a taxi that enters the rear while driving a bus, and to inflict an injury on 30 passengers by getting out of the river (affirmative)

In a case where a bus driver was driving a bus under the speed and caused an injury to 30 passengers by falling down a river under the left 4 meters left by a Hand to avoid a collision with a taxi that enters the bus, even if the motive of the occurrence of the accident is taken by hand in order to avoid a collision with the taxi that was followed, it seems that the bus driver could have easily avoided the accident if he was under the speed, taking into account the surrounding geographical circumstances, and thus, this is not an ordinary accident, but a "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Attorney Park Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu686 delivered on July 20, 1984

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and Article 31 and subparagraph 5 of the same Article, one of the causes for the above accident to be "if many casualties have occurred due to heavy traffic accidents", and thus, the "serious traffic accidents" are required to be caused by "serious traffic accidents". Whether a person falls under the "serious traffic accidents" here is not based on the criteria stipulated in the Regulations on Disposition of Revocation, etc. of Business License under Article 31 of the above Act, merely an administrative order with regard to the number of casualties or the degree of injury, but rather, it is necessary to consider the degree of negligence of the person causing the traffic accidents, the circumstance of the accident, the impact of the accident on the general society, etc., and to determine whether the above accident can be seen as a serious traffic accident, rather than a traffic accident that may normally occur, the non-party, who is an operator of the plaintiff company, who obtains a license for the above vehicle transport business within Seoul National University, is not a driver of the plaintiff company, who was under the influence of the above 1's order to stop and stop.

In light of the records, if the facts of the court below are found to be identical to the judgment below, but the actual sulfur protocol among the results of the examination of criminal records Nos. 2-2 (Statement Statement) and 2-49 (Supplementary Medicine), which were not rejected by the court below, is collected, the location of the accident in this case is opened on the left side as a jumh-3 meter, which toward the embbbb to the ebb to the ebb to the ec to the ec tomb to the ec to the ec tom., and the ec to the ec tom to the ec to the ec tom to the ec to the ec tom to the ec to the ec tom to the ec tom to the ec to the ec tom to the ec tom to the ec to the ec tom to the ec tom to the ec to the ec tom to the ec to the ec tom to the e.

Even though the court below's revocation of the defendant's disposition on the ground that it does not constitute a serious traffic accident, it is reasonable to discuss the grounds for appeal without the need to determine other grounds for appeal, since the defendant's revocation of disposition committed an unlawful act by wrong interpretation of Article 31 subparagraph 5.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)