beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: at the bottom of the fifth part of the judgment of the first instance, the second instance court's "this court" shall be dismissed as "the first instance court"; "the results of inquiry into fact" shall be deleted; and "the results of inquiry into fact" shall be added to "the results of inquiry into the head of the Seoul Hospital of the first instance"; and "the results of inquiry into fact" shall be as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following: "the results of the inquiry into fact" under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition, the Defendant is aware of the deceased’s occupational duties by serving as a bus driver for more than 30 years, and operated the same route for more than 2 years after becoming an employee of the instant transportation company, and there was no special reason to be stressed on the driving on the day of the instant accident. Since the time operation of the village bus driven by the deceased was relatively short compared to other urban buses for more than 20 to 27 minutes before the date of the accident, the deceased was able to take sufficient rest due to his previous illness, and it is difficult to view that the deceased died only due to the previous disease, and due to the occupational stress or stress. However, according to the fact-finding on the head of the Seoul University Hospital of the first and the first instance court of the first instance, the deceased was found to have been on the side of the bus after the end of the operation, and there was no direct stress on the deceased’s injury, and thus, it could be found that the deceased was on duty for a long time beyond the limit of one minute due to stress, and there was no possibility of the deceased’s injury.
In addition, there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased's driver's duties and the unemployed's failure beyond the U.S.A. on the ground that the deceased took full rest before the instant accident occurred.