1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On June 7, 2012, between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The ground for liability is that the Plaintiff is a mutual-aid business entity that compensates for damages caused by an accident that occurred during the operation of a C male passenger bus.

B around 17:20 on June 7, 2012, the Defendant, as the driver of the bus at a stop at the entrance of Ulsan-gu D, Ulsan-gu, opened the rear door without stopping the bus completely, and the Defendant, who was unloading from the support stand installed on the bus, suffered the injury of the shouldered salt of the right by plucking and digging up to the right hand.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” After three months of the instant accident, the Defendant was diagnosed to have additional damage to the Alley during the period of 5 months from the date of the instant accident, i.e., extreme e., the right shoulder, and e., five months from the date of the instant accident. On June 10, 2014, the amount of 2 years elapsed was diagnosed by the Korea University Medical Center Hospital as the Empic Macula, and is currently under medical treatment due to stress disorder, adaptation disorder, the right side pain, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, and 6-2-6-1, 2, 3, and 7-2, and Eul evidence 2, and the result of the first instance court's verification of CDs, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case in accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. The limitation of liability: (a) although the Defendant did not completely stop the bus and it was difficult to maintain the balance of the body due to the lack of the bus, the bus should have been able to secure its own safety by breaking the support stand up until the bus stops completely, it shall be deemed that there was an error of neglecting this and getting out of it through open doors. Therefore, taking into account these Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff’s responsibility is limited to 90%.

2. In calculating the scope of the liability for damages, any amount below the middle period shall be included in the side on which the appraised value is less than the middle period, and it shall be less than the original and the last one.