1. The Plaintiff’s damage liability due to the traffic accident stated in the attached Form against the Defendant does not exist.

1. The Defendant, around 7:30 on December 20, 2016, went out of the roadway by getting a bicycle lane in front of the “C” located in Ansan-si Member B, Ansan-si, and coming out of the roadway by getting out of the left side of the bicycle lane.

immediately after that, the Defendant suffered from the upper right edges of the E bus owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the bus in this case”) that was driven by the Plaintiff’s bus engineer D, and the Defendant suffered from the upper end of the bus in each side of the right edges (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 8 and 9 (including virtual numbers), each video and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred from the Defendant’s bicycle lane created in India, which goes beyond his own care, while driving a bicycle on the bicycle lane, and falls out of the roadway. The Plaintiff’s allegation did not occur due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of care of bus articles or vehicle defects, and thus, there is no obligation to compensate for damages arising from the instant accident to be borne by the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care, such as the duty of care of bus articles, and thus, the Plaintiff, the user of the bus article, is obligated to pay KRW 18,707,440, passive damages 28,18,568, and solatium 10,000,00,00 due to the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a pecuniary obligation, if the Plaintiff, a debtor, claims first and subsequently denied the facts constituting a debt, the Defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and proving the facts regarding the requirements of the legal relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). B.

Judgment

1 In light of the following circumstances, each of the above evidence, evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 10, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings: