채무부존재확인
1. The Defendant’s traffic accidents beyond C urban bus on March 13, 2018 against the Defendant.
1. In full view of the following facts: Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Eul’s evidence Nos. 5-1, and 5-2, the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) the city bus (cab No. E; hereinafter “instant bus”); (b) operated by the plaintiff, operated by the plaintiff, was started after stopping in the vicinity of the I Apartment apartment, while the vehicle was driven in the direction of the H high school at the G elementary school level on March 13, 2018, according to Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City Seo-gu International 5, the driver F) was driven in the direction of the G high school at the G elementary school. The defendant, while aboard the above city bus, was stopped beyond the above point of origin (hereinafter “the instant accident”), 2, 3-teach, 5-2, and 5-2.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Although the instant bus was operated at a speed of about 10 km as soon as possible pursuant to the new subparagraph, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s gross negligence, as it was caused by the Defendant’s failure to lose its center towards the passenger seating in order to get off the bus.
Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver of the instant bus, and the Plaintiff, the operator of the instant bus, also did not compensate the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident.
B. As to the instant accident by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident.
3. According to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, in the event a passenger is injured due to an automobile accident, the operator is not liable to compensate for the damage caused by the injury of the passenger without asserting or proving that the injury of the passenger was caused intentionally. Thus, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability on the ground that the passenger was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da6560, May 27, 1993).