logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2014.05.22 2012가단18937
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,299,919 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 10, 2012 to May 22, 2014.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On January 10, 2012, B (“instant bus”) owned by Bo Young Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant bus”) around 05:30 on January 10, 2012

(2) After having arrived at the bus stops in front of the bus stops in order to get passengers to board and alight, the driver of the bus stops and stops to get passengers to board and alight. The driver of the bus starts with the driver’s duty of care to check passengers’ getting off and alight from the bus, and to prevent the passengers from falling off the bus on board and alighting off the bus, but he neglected the above duty of care, and thereby, caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, such as the offline, by getting the Plaintiff to get off the bus at the time of getting off the bus at the time of getting off the bus at the time of getting off and off the bus (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the instant bus.

3) According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of the bus of this case. (b) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not prepare to get off the bus in advance or was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care required at the time of getting off the bus. However, the accident of this case starts from the bus of this case without confirming the completion of getting off the bus of this case, which led the plaintiff to fall down on the road, so it is irrelevant to the failure of the plaintiff to prepare for getting off the bus in advance, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care required at the time of getting off the bus, and therefore, the above argument is not acceptable. [In the absence of any grounds for recognition, 1-4 of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The scope of liability for damages is below.

arrow