[1] The meaning of the non-accidented driving experience under Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act

[2] In a case where a driver's negligence or negligence is closed by an investigation agency, etc., whether the court is bound by the above judgment (negative)

[1] The term "accidentless driving experience" referred to in Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule, and the regulations on the handling of individual taxi drivers' licenses for Gwangju Metropolitan City refers to the driving experience that there was no accident due to the driver's responsible reasons, notwithstanding

[2] Even if a driver's negligence or negligence is settled by an investigation agency, etc., the court shall independently determine whether the driver's negligence exists, since there is no reason to be bound by the court.

[1] Articles 4 and 6 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act / [2] Articles 4 and 6 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1236 delivered on September 14, 1990 (Gong1990, 2107) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8838 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1050) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1903 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1908) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1257 delivered on March 28, 198 (Gong1989, 703)

Plaintiff

Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Gu2896 delivered on April 10, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 15 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act and the regulations on the handling of business without a driver's license for Gwangju Metropolitan City, a motor vehicle transport business, an individual taxi transport business, and an accident refers to the driving experience that there was no accident due to a driver's responsible cause, notwithstanding the existence of punishment therefor, and even if the accident occurred due to a driver's negligence or negligence by an investigation agency, etc., the court shall independently determine the driver's negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1236, Sept. 14, 1990; 91Nu838, Feb. 14, 1992; 92Nu19033, May 27, 1993).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while the plaintiff driving a taxi owned by the non-party 1, 01:20 on February 27, 1996 and driving a taxi owned by the non-party 1, 01:20 on the left side of the Hanju-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu, and driving a two-lane road at a speed of about 60 km per hour according to the straight-on signal, the court below held that the plaintiff is liable for damages caused to the non-party 2, who caused the plaintiff to suffer from the plaintiff's negligence of neglecting the bicycle in front of the front-dong-gu-gu-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and caused the plaintiff to suffer damages to the non-party 1, who is the passenger's right of driving, since the plaintiff caused damages to the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, the right of driving of the non-party 1, who suffered damages to the non-party 2, the plaintiff's negligence.

3. Examining the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to violation of the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding of legal principles as to the experience of accident-free driving, as

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)