A. Whether it constitutes a reason for cancellation of license under the Automobile Transport Business Act to escape after making a person die without a license.

(b) Where a license for automobile transport business is revoked, the case of comparative balancing between the damage suffered by a automobile transport business operator and the degree of necessity for public interest in the disposition thereof;

A. A motor vehicle transport business operator shall thoroughly supervise drivers and other employees to ensure the prevention of accidents and the relief of victims from accidents at all times. As such, in a case where a driver neglected his/her duties and caused the risk of the occurrence of accidents by having a driver drive the steering boat beyond the driver, which led to the occurrence of the accident, causing the death of a person by causing the accident and the death of a person and escape without any appropriate relief measures, such act constitutes a serious criminal act contrary to public welfare and constitutes the revocation of the license as stipulated in Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the former Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act.

B. Since the driver's number of the vehicle involved in the accident was cut off on the side of the driver's seat, and the driver's vehicle was operated in excess of the 15-day suspension of the driver's license for the vehicle involved, it is recognized that the driver's and the driver's accident did not constitute a serious criminal act that seriously harms the public interest of human life, and thus, the cancellation of the driver's license for the vehicle in question cannot be deemed to be a natural measure necessary for the purpose of the automobile transportation administration for the protection of public welfare, on the sole basis of the fact that the driver's license was already imposed on the plaintiff company for 15 days suspension of the driver's license for the vehicle involved in the accident, or that the accident occurred except for the case that the 54 driver's license for the defendant's license was revoked, it is difficult to view that the damage to the plaintiff who owned the vehicle in question due to the cancellation disposition of the license exceeds the public interest.

Article 31 subparagraph 3 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (Before December 31, 1981 amended)

Samsung Transportation Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu61 delivered on March 16, 1982

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

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff owned 54 freight vehicles and operated the automobile transport business. The non-party 1, an operator of the vehicle involved in the accident owned by the plaintiff, without a driver's license, was driving on April 26, 1981 by the non-party 2, who was the driver of the above vehicle, and operated the above vehicle in front of the Namwon-gun, Namwon (5 years old) with the driver's seat of the above vehicle without a driver's license, and did not use the above vehicle in front of the order of suspension of operation within the above 19 days after he went through the rear wheels of the above vehicle and abandoned the victim's accident. The defendant did not use the vehicle in front of the above 19 days after he was under the order of suspension of use under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (No. 680 of Jan. 1, 1981). The plaintiff's order of suspension of operation under Article 31 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is an order of suspension of the above 16 months after its cancellation.

However, a trucking business operator shall thoroughly supervise drivers or other employees so that he/she may always be held responsible for the prevention of accidents, which is one of the most important public interests due to the operation of his/her vehicle, as long as he/she is responsible for the operation of the vehicle, so that the risk of an accident can increase by transferring the vehicle to an unlicensed driver, and if he/she did not take appropriate relief measures even if he/she did not cause an accident, it constitutes a serious criminal act contrary to public welfare, and thus, it is difficult for the court below to see that the Plaintiff’s act of removing an accident is against the above order of suspension of his/her license as well as the above order of suspension of his/her license for more than five days because it constitutes grounds for cancellation of license under Article 31 subparag. 3 of the former Automobile Transport Business Act, and that the Plaintiff’s act of removing the above order of suspension of license cannot be seen as an act of removal of the vehicle beyond the scope of the above order of suspension of license for the purpose of public interest.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)