(a) The meaning of "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and the criteria for judgment thereof;

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute a "serious traffic accident" under the preceding paragraph because the victim's negligence is more severe than that of the victim;

A. The term "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act refers to a serious traffic accident which is not an ordinary traffic accident, and the issue of whether the traffic accident at issue constitutes a serious traffic accident is not determined simply based on the number of casualties, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the occurrence of the traffic accident; (b) the perpetrator's negligence; (c) the degree of fault of the victim; and (d) the damage caused by the damage.

나. 자동차운수사업자인 원고 회사소속 화물자동차의 운전사인 갑이 그 자동차를 운전하여 오르막길의 편도 1차선 도로상을 시속 약 65킬로미터로 운행하던 중 을이 뒷좌석에 병을 태우고 오토바이를 운전하여 중앙선을 따라서 진행하여 오는 것을 발견하였으나 위 오토바이가 피하여 줄 것으로 믿고 속력을 줄이거나 노견으로 피양하지 아니한 채 중앙선 부근으로 그대로 진행하다가 위 오토바이가 목전에 이르러 갑자기 중앙선을 넘어오자 충돌을 피하기 위하여 급정거조치를 취하면서 핸들을 왼쪽으로 꺽었으나 미치지 못하고 위 자동차의 앞밤바부분으로 위 오토바이를 충격하여 을과 병을 땅에 떨어지게 함으로써 그들을 사망에 이르게 하였다면 위 교통사고의 발생에 갑에게 과실이 있다 할지라도 그에 못지 않게 도로중앙선 부위로 운행하다가 갑자기 중앙선을 침범하여 반대차선으로 넘어간 위 오토바이 운전자에게 더 큰 잘못이 있어 원고측에서 저지른 이 사건 교통사고는 자동차운수사업법 제31조 제1항 제5호 가 규정하고 있는 중대한 교통사고에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다.

(a)Article 31(1)5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu472 delivered on December 11, 1984, 86Nu735 delivered on April 14, 1987, and 89Nu3564 delivered on January 25, 199

Postal Services Corporation

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5167 Decided December 19, 1089

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term "serious traffic accident" under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act refers to a serious traffic accident that is not an ordinary traffic accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu472, Dec. 11, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu735, Apr. 14, 1987; 86Nu735, Apr. 14, 1987) to the extent that it is deemed inappropriate to continue to operate a transport business or to hold a license, taking into account the occurrence of the traffic accident, the circumstances such as the perpetrator's negligence, degree of negligence of the victim, damage caused by damage, etc., and it is not determined simply on the basis of the number of casualties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3564, Jan. 25, 190).

According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the truck belonging to the plaintiff company, driving the above motor vehicle in Gwangju-gun, driving the above motor vehicle at the speed of approximately 65 kilometers per hour while driving the first line on the road in the vicinity of Gwangju-gun, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the plaintiff company, at the speed of approximately 8 km, is found to drive the non-party 1, the non-party 2 on the back 4, and driving the upper line with the central line. However, the non-party 1, while driving the above 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the plaintiff company, was believed to avoid the above stong and driving the above 1, the non-party 2, who was not a driver of the plaintiff company, was found to have driven the above 8,000-party 1, and the above 1,000-party 1, who was found to have been negligent in driving the above 1, even if the above 1, it did not lead to the plaintiff 1.

In addition, even though there was a judgment such as the theory of litigation in criminal and civil cases related to the traffic accident of this case, the court below does not regard it as an obstacle to the fact-finding or judgment above.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to argue that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

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 Young-ju (Presiding Justice)