1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability for damages due to the attached Form against the Defendant does not exist.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 21:30 on April 27, 2014, B driven D urban buses owned by C company (hereinafter “instant bus”) and proceeded at a speed of about 30 km from the side of the side of the side of the side of the side of the city from Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the speed of about 30 km each other in the direction of the road next to the shortest distance from the side of the side of the side of the side of the city from Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Defendant, where the said bus was stopped and stopped at the said bus stops in order to reduce the speed of the radar for stopping, and the Defendant, at the said bus stops, was going beyond the center of the down stairs that the said bus would open to the lower end.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Defendant suffered injuries, such as the internal side rupture, rupture, and rupture of the inside side of the rupture due to the instant accident.

C. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with C company with respect to the instant bus.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and determination of the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was satisfyed by the Plaintiff and was not negligent by the bus driver.

The defendant asserts that there is a driver's negligence on the part of the driver by opening the lower door while the bus B was rapidly stopped and the bus of this case was not completely stopped.

According to the above evidence, B stopped the bus at the location of the accident of this case, and opened the door of the bus, and even if the defendant was found to have been injured while getting out of the bus, the above facts alone were found to be urgent.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the bus of this case was opened with the rear door before and after the accident of this case. Furthermore, considering that the bus of this case was operated normally before and after the accident of this case, it is deemed that there was no structural defect or functional obstacle to the bus of this case at the time of the accident of this case.

Rather, it is recognized by each of the above evidence.