beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, and Defendant C, Defendant D, E, and F respectively, KRW 14,32,198, and each of them from June 1, 2012.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 1, 2012, around 09:15, the Plaintiff was boarding and standing on a non-party G driving bus operated by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant bus”). However, around 09:40 on the same day, the said bus stops at a bus stop in front of the entrance of the South-west coast guard located in the west-gun, Sinnam-gun, Sinnam-gun, and stops at a three-way crossing crossing, not a stop stop. The Plaintiff was getting out of the said bus.
B. At around 09:40, B (hereinafter referred to as “nurbian”) driven the train engine and proceeded ahead of the entrance of the landing bridge in the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the new road. At this point, the Plaintiff was crossinged in the safety zone of the direction of the direction of the direction of the passage of the bus at the time, and the Plaintiff was crossinged by the bus of this case at the direction of the safety zone of the direction of the direction of the passage of the road as above, and thus, the Defendant was well aware of the direction of the direction of the passage, and the Defendant was negligent in stopping the crosswalk at a time before the passage of the crosswalk and making it difficult for the pedestrian to obstruct or endanger the passage of the pedestrian, and sustained the Plaintiff’s left bridge with the rear wheels of the Plaintiff’s port bridge, and suffered damage, such as the escape of the combined 14 weeks coar
(hereinafter “instant accident”) C.
The Nonparty died on March 7, 2013, and Defendant C’s wife, Defendant D, E, and F are Nonparty’s inheritors.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the non-party is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the shock of the plaintiff who passed the crosswalk due to negligence that did not perform his/her duty to protect pedestrians. The defendant C, D, E, and F, as the non-party's heir, are the non-party's heir.