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
The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, unless it excludes adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus cites this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The defendant asserts that it is impossible to avoid the accident of this case by considering the distance of public road (the necessary distance from the moment when the driver discovered the danger situation to the moment when the driver took the balk pedal) while finding the pipe that was protruding from the road by the bus driver belonging to the defendant was 3 to 5 meters from the point of accident.
Judgment
The screen image (CCTV, No. 1) taken by the bus with a camera installed on the bus is not good, and it is not easy to check from a distance from the pipe’s body conflicting with the bus, because of the reverse light (e.g., reverse light). However, in light of the length and thickness of the pipe as confirmed in the vicinity of the accident site, it is determined that the pipe used by the victim could have been identified more than from the screen on the actual site.
In addition, if Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence No. 1 added the purport of the entire pleading to the video of Eul evidence No. 1, it was a high level of reinforcement work prior to five months prior to the accident site, and accordingly, it can be recognized that there was a safe plastic transit informing that the construction is in progress according to the boundary line on the left side of the road immediately before the site of the accident site of this case. Thus, as a bus driver belonging to the defendant who repeatedly operates the accident site of this case on a daily basis, it is necessary to reduce the speed and show the situation of the front bank.
Nevertheless, at the time of the accident of this case, the bus operator belonging to the defendant did not take all such measures as above and went into a distance.