(a) Criteria for determining whether a “serious traffic accident” falls under Article 31(1)5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it does not constitute a serious traffic accident where it does not constitute a serious traffic accident where three passengers are killed by falling into the sea while driving the seaside road at night while neglecting the duty of ex officio.

A. Whether a certain traffic accident constitutes a "serious traffic accident" as provided in Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined depending on whether or not it is deemed improper in light of the public interest of the Automobile Transport Business Act, rather than whether or not such a traffic accident is likely to occur, by examining the contents and result of the traffic accident, such as the degree of negligence on the part of the person causing the traffic accident, negligence on the part of the victim, circumstance of occurrence of the accident, specific damage situations, impact of the accident on the general society.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that it did not constitute a serious traffic accident where three passengers die by falling off the road out of the road and falling off the sea, while driving the seaside road without light at night and not equipped with the road signs properly, on the first time while neglecting the duty of booming.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1267 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1169), 90Nu3546 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2300), 92Nu4819 delivered on June 26, 1992 (Gong192, 2302)

A male Transportation Corporation

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu5652 delivered on July 28, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the company belonging to the plaintiff, was missing on September 30, 1992. The non-party 1, on the part of the plaintiff company's 4Hab-2596 Busan company's business, carried three passengers on the cab, and found the frequency of the accident located in the Doncheon-dong, Busan. The location of the Doncheon-dong, located near the Doncheon-dong, and was plired by the "A", and the road was plired by the 5 meters sea at the end of the road without any street lights at the end of the road, and it was not possible to find out the situation of the road at the time, and there was no facilities to prevent the fall into the sea, and thus, the non-party 1, as the first taxi driver of the vehicle first driven on the road, was not negligent in the operation of the road without any agreement to reduce the speed of the accident and to prevent the accident.

2. Whether a certain traffic accident constitutes a "serious traffic accident" as provided in Article 31 (1) 5 of the Automobile Transport Business Act shall be determined depending on whether it is serious to such extent that it is deemed inappropriate in light of the public interest achieved by the Automobile Transport Business Act, not to allow a motor vehicle transport business operator to continue the transport business or to hold a license or registration, by fairly examining the contents and result of the traffic accident, such as the degree of negligence of the person who caused the traffic accident, negligence on the part of the victim, circumstances where the accident occurred, specific damage situations caused by the accident, and impacts of the accident on the general society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4819, Jun. 26, 1992).

However, as determined by the court below, the court below found that the non-party was subject to the imposition of a penalty surcharge on the ground that the non-party employed the non-party below's qualification requirements for taxi driving, on the ground that the non-party did not have light at night and did not have a proper road sign board, and the non-party continued to run the 70 km-in speed continuously without neglecting his duty at night, and that the non-party fell into the sea beyond the other road that caused the death of 3 passengers at the site, the degree of negligence cannot be deemed to be less than that of the accident, and the damage caused to the non-party's accident. In light of the above circumstances of the accident, damage, driver's negligence, and lack of the qualification requirements, even if the non-party did not have a fall preventive facility or street light facilities at the point of the accident of this case, and the non-party's 1 did not have a significant discretion to the non-party 1's automobile transport business to the extent that the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to serious traffic accidents, which affected the conclusion that the disposition of this case was exceeded the scope of discretion on the ground that the accident does not fall under the above serious traffic accidents. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)