1. On December 21, 2016, the Defendant is in the bus B at the bus stop in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 21, 2016, a driver belonging to the earthquake-fighting transportation stopped at the bus stops in the bus stops of the Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant bus stops”) by driving the B urban bus (hereinafter “Plaintiff bus”) owned by the said company on December 21, 2016. At the time, the driver was lowered from the Plaintiff bus on the bus located on the Plaintiff bus and was in excess of the roadside.

(hereinafter referred to as "accident of this case")

The plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the plaintiff bus.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s bus driver, and the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay mutual aid money due to the instant accident to the Defendant. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was under the Plaintiff bus, but the Plaintiff’s bus driver was trying to close down his door, and the Defendant was in excess of the Plaintiff’s bus driver’s license in the lower door warning to close down the door.

Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff bus driver.

The plaintiff is obligated to pay the mutual aid money to the defendant.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, the debtor, specified the first claim in order to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred, the defendant, the creditor, is liable to prove the facts of the legal relationship. In this case, the plaintiff claims to deny the facts of the cause of the claim for the mutual-aid under the automobile mutual-aid agreement, so the defendant, the creditor, is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17821 delivered on July 26, 2002, etc.). In light of the respective descriptions or images of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 8 (including virtual numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 shall be deemed respectively.