A. Fact 1) The Defendant is G urban bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”)

2) On December 23, 2013, H driven the Defendant bus at around 14:00 and stopped at the bus stop in front of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Southern-ro 26 Seodaemun-gu.

I go back to the defendant bus who intends to get off another bus stopped after the defendant bus.

H A around the start of the Defendant bus, at the same time I lost its center on its own, and during that process, a woman’s arm’s length was sub-under the rear wheels of the Defendant bus.

He left the Defendant bus, and, at this time, the latter wheels of the Defendant bus used to re-enter the Defendant bus I.

(3) The Plaintiffs died due to the instant accident. (4) The Plaintiffs are the deceased’s children.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The defendant asserts that H's act behind the bus constitutes an emergency evacuation and the accident in this case occurred entirely due to I's mistake and the defendant must be exempted. The defendant asserts that H's act is an accident that occurred entirely due to I's mistake and the accident in this case is an accident that occurred entirely from the accident, and the defendant should be exempted. The defendant's act is exempted from liability, since H's duty of care to look into the movement of I that is behind the bus was already at the time of the departure of the defendant bus.

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that: (a) the Plaintiff caused the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s death by neglecting his duty of care to safely start the Defendant bus by taking well the left and left; and (b) neglecting his duty of care to safely start the bus by minimizing the damage while the Defendant bus’s purchase was sub-fluored with I; and (c) neglecting his duty of care to drive the bus by minimizing the damage.

Therefore, the defendant.