1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,741,779 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 15, 2015 to August 11, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: (a) C city buses around 19:55 on August 15, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant bus”)

2) The Plaintiff, while driving a bus and driving a road in front of the Hoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, in order to ensure that the front of the Hosan-gu road was driven along the two-lanes from the inner-dong bank to the Sinsan-dong bank, and stopped in the signal signal atmosphere. After opening the rear door of the Defendant bus at a place other than the bus stop, the Plaintiff was forced the Plaintiff, who was on board the Defendant bus to get out of the Defendant bus. The Plaintiff was shocked on the car driven along the right-hand side of the Defendant bus between the moment he was getting out of the Defendant bus (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as cutting down to the right, cutting down to the right edge, etc.

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for Defendant bus (based on recognition). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for Defendant bus (based on recognition), without dispute, evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 (including paper numbers,

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant bus.

C. According to the evidence No. 1 (B) No. 1 of the limitation of liability, it is confirmed that Defendant bus has only one bus stop, and immediately turn down on the lower belt, and the Plaintiff is waiting in the rear door of Defendant bus. However, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff, first of all, took action as seen in the Plaintiff’s toward the bus engineer, and opening the rear door by the bus engineer.

The plaintiff asserted in the complaint that "the plaintiff had been able to enjoy and lower the low level, but the article of the defendant bus was passing through a bus stop and getting the bus down," but this is contrary to the contents of the above black box image.

The plaintiff's written objection against the ruling of recommending reconciliation is in the back of the bus that the plaintiff intends to safely set the bus in advance to get off the bus at the next stop.