The case holding that the "serious traffic accident" in Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act means an accident in which taxi drivers and passengers die, and two passengers are injured, because the taxi conflict with the truck loaded on the central line or the opposite line.

If a taxi driver, who is a transportation company, operated the taxi and operated the taxi to turn to the left at a small range of 13.63 meters wide of the roadways, passes through an accident site where the taxi driver, who is a transportation company, was placed in the vehicle that operated hand-on and balkes on the road, and went beyond the center line, and the driver and the passenger of the passenger are killed, while the driver and the passenger of the passenger are driving the vehicle going to go beyond the center line, and two drivers of the truck are injured by 17 weeks in front, and two passengers of the truck are not installed with safety lights or driving areas near the site of the accident, or after considering the situation agreed with the victims, the above accident constitutes "when a serious casualties is caused by a serious traffic accident" as prescribed in Article 31.1.5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

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

Attorney Lee Chang-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Cheongju Market

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu9755 delivered on May 15, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the number of the non-party 1,5907, who is a taxi driver of the plaintiff's Chungcheongbuk 1,5907, operated the above taxi at the time and passed through the accident site of the judgment. In order to avoid a number of vehicles that operated handbags and balkes on the road, the driver and the non-party 7Da2910, who entered the opposite taxi beyond the central line, died of the driver and the non-party 17, the driver of the truck, the two passengers, and the two passengers were injured by each two weeks of the 13.63 meters wide right-hand turn, and the accident point of the accident is a little right-hand turn-hand way, and the accident occurred in the middle of the recent seven months, and the traffic accident, such as safety marking, or accident marking, was not installed, and the traffic accident of this case was not established, and the accident of this case, which was recognized as unlawful after the conclusion of the judgment of the judgment below.

However, if the cause, circumstances, damage situations, etc. of the accident of this case are the same as the original contents in the original market, it shall be deemed that the accident of this case constitutes a case where many casualties have been caused due to a serious traffic accident under Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, even if safety signs or safety signs have not been installed in the vicinity of the accident or circumstances agreed with the victims after the accident.

The judgment of the court below recognized the facts of the judgment, and the decision that the accident of this case does not constitute a serious traffic accident under the above Article is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of a serious traffic accident. Therefore, the arguments pointing this out

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)