1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 2017, at around 15:59, the Plaintiff: (a) was injured by the 4th head of the road cage, and the 5th head of the road cage at the right side, following the Plaintiff’s departure of the Defendant bus from the Defendant bus while getting in the Defendant Sung-friendly Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), and moving to the back of the bus at the location of the 931 North Korea Home Stacker stop (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), which was in excess of the center due to the departure of the Defendant bus.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Defendant Company is the owner and operator of the Defendant bus, and the Federation of the Defendant National Bus Transport Business Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”) is the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant bus.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the liability, the driver of the Defendant bus caused the instant accident because the Plaintiff, who was aboard the bus, was in a safe landing and did not perform his duty to start the bus properly (in particular, the bus is not able to wear a safety bell unlike the car, and it is structurally weak to ensure safety, such as it is a public transport used by the public, and has a duty of care to ensure safe operation for the protection of passengers). Accordingly, the Defendant bus operator, as the Defendant bus operator, and the Defendant Cooperative is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

B. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant bus started relatively slowly, and the remaining passengers except the plaintiff did not seem to move. However, it is recognized that the plaintiff went up from the floor to the end of the bus so that the plaintiff can come up with a 50-60 cm gushe from the floor to the end of the bus, and has lost the center.