1. On September 5, 2016, at around 09:20 on September 5, 2016, B buses operated by the Plaintiff in the vicinity of the opening dong of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government are altered.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the operator of the bus B (hereinafter “instant bus”), and the Defendant is the owner of the private taxi C (hereinafter “instant taxi”).

B. On September 5, 2016, around 09:20, around the opening Station of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, there was a traffic accident in which the instant bus was in contact with the instant taxi that had been proceeding three lanes while changing the bus from two lanes to three lanes (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

C. The Defendant asserted that he suffered losses for not more than three days due to the instant traffic accident, and claimed payment of KRW 500,000 to the Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurance company of the instant bus.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the traffic accident of this case can be acknowledged that the part prior to the right side of the bus of this case and the back wheels part of the back wheels part of the taxi of this case were contacted, as the latter body of the taxi of this case, and at the time of the above contact, the taxi of this case was shocked to the extent that the body of the contact part was flaged, and the body of the contact part was flaged, and several defects were found.

In light of the circumstances and degree of the traffic accident of this case, and the parts and degree of damage to the taxi of this case, it is difficult to deem that the defendant suffered injury to the extent that the defendant did not work for three days due to the traffic accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, in relation to the accident of this case, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to pay 500,000 won to the defendant for damages caused by lost profits, and as long as the defendant claims the payment of the above damages to the insurance company, there is a benefit to confirm it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.