beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around 13:40 on September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a right shouldering, etc., on the wind that the entrance door of the said train was closed in order to get off and get off the train of Busan subway 1, which the Defendant operated.
This is an accident caused by the wind that the above train driver, who did not confirm even if the Plaintiff was not completely unloaded from the train, was not the passenger, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the above accident.
2. According to the judgment of the court below, Gap 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including household numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2012, the plaintiff talked that "the plaintiff was faced with shoulders on the entrance while getting on and off the Busan subway No. 1 on September 27, 2012 and getting off the entrance to the call center of the defendant company on September 28, 2012." On October 4, 2012, the plaintiff was diagnosed at the right side of the plaintiff, and was hospitalized for eight days from the date of the diagnosis, and was treated for treatment, from around October 4, 2012 to January 30, 2013, the plaintiff was unable to recognize the part of the entrance entrance from Busan subway to the right side of the plaintiff's entrance from around 1, 203 to 3:5 days from the date of the diagnosis, and there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was treated at the right side of the entrance from the plaintiff.
Even if the plaintiff alleged, he suffered injuries by facing shoulders at the entrance of the train.
Even if each evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was caused by the defendant's negligence, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, so the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff himself/herself stated in the Eul evidence No. 2.