The case holding that it constitutes a serious traffic accident as stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act to allow two persons to die of an Oral lebane, which is rapidly stopped before the passage of the signal prior to the change of the signal is not compared to the change of the signal.

The case holding that it constitutes a serious traffic accident as stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, where the act of causing two persons to die from a sudden stop in front of the moment when the signals are changed without comparing to the changed signals prior to the entry into an intersection;

Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Attorney Seo Young-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

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

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu863 delivered on January 15, 1985

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

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

1. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s revocation of the license for the automobile transport business of the Plaintiff-owned bus (Seoul 5S. 912) was unlawful on the ground that the non-party 1, who is a driver of the above-mentioned bus, did not immediately change the traffic signal of the above-mentioned bus at the speed of 13:5 on the ground that the traffic accident caused the death of the driver and the passengers of the above-mentioned bus and caused the accident to two pedestrians due to the serious traffic accidents as stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and that the above traffic accident constitutes a case where the non-party 1 had caused many casualties due to the serious traffic accidents under subparagraph 5 of the above-mentioned bus rapid change between the driver and the driver of the above-mentioned bus at the speed of 50 kilometers and the driver of the above-mentioned bus at the speed of 30 kilometers in front of the above-mentioned bus at the speed of 50 kilometers in front of the driver of the above-mentioned bus at the speed of the front.

2. However, according to the evidence cited by the court below, since the point where the traffic accident of the non-party 1, which had been driven by the non-party 1, was at the front of the crosswalk installed at the entrance of the original road at the front of the intersection, from among the roads passing by the front of the intersection, the traffic accident occurred at the front of the intersection, and the non-party 1 was at the front of 10 meters away from the front of the intersection. As the court below decided that the traffic accident of the non-party 1 would have been changed to the front of the intersection due to the fact that the traffic accident of the non-party 1 would have occurred at the front of the intersection, it is hard to view that the traffic accident of the non-party 1 would have been changed to the front of the intersection, and the traffic accident of the non-party 1 would have been changed to the front of the bus traffic accident, and the driver of the non-party 2, who was at the front of the intersection, could not be seen to have been at the front of the traffic accident.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju