1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Defendant bus”), the owner of D passenger bus typeed bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

B. A bus article E, around 16:50 on October 6, 2015, was driven by the Defendant bus and stopped at the bus stops in the bus stop according to the Daegu Suwon-gu Flag.

Plaintiff

A Ha, along with a line in order to board a bus following the Defendant bus, she left the border line above India, lost the center of the street trees above India's boundary line, and continued to go beyond the road on the side of the rear wheels of the Defendant bus, which began to go over to the road.

In the above accident, the plaintiff A suffered injury, such as damage to the inner part and annual installments on the inside of the direction.

C. On December 9, 2015, Defendant bus article E was subject to a disposition by an investigative agency on suspicion of a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents due to the said accident by predicting A to go beyond the vehicular road, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the duty of due care to prevent the accident in advance.

(The grounds for recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office (No. 70788), the entry of Eul evidence 1, and the video of Eul evidence 3

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The alleged plaintiffs had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents at the bus stops, such as the passengers getting on and off the defendant bus article, that is, if the defendant bus article viewed the accident only once a stop, the plaintiff A of the age of 81 could have observed the situation in which the plaintiff A could unbrupted in Indian seat, and if so, the plaintiff A could sufficiently be aware of the probability that the accident may unbrupted in light of the plaintiff A's walk, etc., but it was caused by the violation of such duty of care, and thereby the damage suffered by the plaintiffs.