logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.24 2014가단239529
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff has no liability to compensate the defendant due to the traffic accident stated in the attached Form.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B, around 7:45 a.m. on February 20, 2014, driving a route bus belonging to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant bus”) on the front of the D-road located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and driving the bus along the central bus exclusive lane, which is one-lane one-lane off from the city interest distance away from the front of the horse, caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff is a route bus transport business entity who owns and manages the instant bus.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred by the defendant's total negligence, and that the bus driver B, who is the bus driver of this case, is not negligent since there is no possibility of predicting or avoiding the accident, and therefore, the plaintiff is not obliged to pay damages to the defendant, and the non-existence thereof is confirmed.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the accident of this case occurred by failing to avoid a collision due to the fault that B proceeded in due to the fact that, in light of the speed, road conditions, traffic conditions, etc. of the bus at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant could have discovered the Defendant and prevented a sufficient accident by taking measures such as the operation of the bus, etc., if he had been driven with due care.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 7 (including paper numbers), at the time of the instant accident, B was driven by a overtaking line of the central bus exclusive lanes, and the bus stop at the central bus exclusive lane No. 2 was stopped for getting off the bus, but the Defendant was making a stop for getting off the bus at the central bus exclusive lane No. 1 to 7. The instant bus was a route that was not stopped at the said bus stop, but the bus No. 2 passed near the bus stops.

arrow