1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B-W passenger buses (hereinafter “instant bus”).

B. C around 17:40 on October 5, 2014, while driving the instant bus, it stopped at a bus stop located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yang Jae-dong.

C. At around 17:41 on the same day, the Defendant left the bus in front of the instant bus, and C confirmed the Defendant who left the bus above the sidewalk, and thereafter started the bus in this case.

The Defendant, immediately after getting down from the bus of this case, she was in lineed with the body of the Defendant, and she was in line with the body of the Bank of Korea, and she was in line with the stone that became the boundary between the tea and the delivery, and then she was in line with vadi, which is vadi. The lower wheels of the bus of this case was in line with the Defendant’s left arm’s length.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1-4; Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-10; and images (including numbers, if any); the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i.e., the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's unilateral negligence, claiming that the plaintiff's liability for damages against the defendant due to the accident of this case does not exist

⑵ 피고의 주장 ㈎ 이 사건 사고는 피고가 이 사건 버스에서 하차하는 과정에서 발생하였다.

㈏ 그렇지 않더라도 이 사건 버스의 운전자인 C에게는 술에 취한 피고의 안전을 확인한 후 이 사건 버스를 출발시키거나 피고에게 주의를 촉구할 의무가 있었고, 그럼에도 불구하고 C가 서둘러 이 사건 버스를 출발시킨 과실로 이 사건 사고가 발생하였다.

㈐ 따라서 원고는 피고가 이 사건 사고로 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다.

B. (i) A driver of a motor vehicle generally assumes a duty of care to avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation.