1. B around March 18, 2015, the C bus owned by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) was operated on March 18, 2015, and 13.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

(a)The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in each entry in Eul evidence of heading 1 to 7, Eul evidence of heading 10, 11, and Eul evidence of heading 15 (including each number), together with the purport of the whole pleadings:

1) A bus owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant bus”) around 21:20 March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff’s driver Party B, who is the Plaintiff’s driver, is a C bus owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant bus”).

) On the other hand, the Defendant’s inside and outside of the bus crossing the lane from the right side of the bus to the left side of the bus while driving the road in front of the shooting distance of the 13 Kimpo-dong Office, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, while driving in front of the shooting distance in the mountain apartment room to the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and driving by negligence. The Defendant’s inside and outside of the taxi, who was crossing the lane from the taxi to the right side of the bus (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Defendant suffered from injury, such as the instant injury, such as ductal and ductal, etc. (hereinafter “the instant injury”), and suffered from the injury from March 18, 2015.

5. By the 18th day, the hospital was hospitalized in the hospital.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant sustained injury due to the operation of the bus of this case, and the Plaintiff, the operator of this case, is obligated to compensate the Defendant for the damage caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, barring any special circumstance.

C. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of crossing the intersection without permission while the defendant met, and that the bus driver B of the bus in this case does not have any violation of the duty of care, and there is no structural defect or functional obstacle of the bus in this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be held liable to compensate the plaintiff who is the operator of the bus in this case for damages.

each entry of the evidence of paragraphs 3 through 9 (including each number), as a whole.