1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for D buses owned by C (hereinafter referred to as “instant buses”), and the plaintiff is a person who was a passenger of the instant buses.

On November 5, 2015, 09:30 on November 5, 2015, E, a bus driver of the bus of this case, boarded the bus of this case, including the Plaintiff, and passed the speed prevention threshold in front of the sexual 1-ropon platform of the Jinsan-si, Jinsan-si, and during that process, the Plaintiff, who was seated at the front left of the bus of this case, was suffering from injury, such as pressure drupe No. 1 in the Triet.

(hereinafter “instant accident” (hereinafter “instant accident”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 3 evidence (including a serial number), and the fact that the recognition of liability for damages arising from the overall purport of the pleadings is recognized, since the operator of the instant bus sustained the plaintiff due to its operation, the Defendant, the mutual aid business operator, shall be liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

In addition to the above-mentioned evidence and evidence as well as evidence No. 8, if the whole purport of the pleading is added, it is recognized that the bus of this case did not have a safety labelling line separately on the seat; the bus operated on a general road other than the school is operated under the speed of the section where the old-distance and the high possibility for passengers to fire by front or rear left or under the road; in particular, the passenger seat aboard the bus of this case was at a higher location than the bus floor after the bus of this case; thus, the passenger of this location is at a higher level than the bus floor after the bus of this case; in full view of these circumstances, the passenger of this case was at a duty of care to maintain its safety by putting the hand or front seat during the operation of the bus of this case.