2019Na11723 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligations

A Organization

Law Firm Cheongju, Attorney Cho Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

B

Attorney Shin-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Cheongju District Court Decision 2017Da108691 Decided February 22, 2019

August 21, 2019

October 30, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 38,240,820 won with 5% interest per annum from November 1, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the application form for the purpose of the claim of this case and the modification of the cause of the claim of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition or modification as follows. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional or modified parts

3. Determination of the occurrence and limitation of liability for damages, A. The occurrence of liability for damages is changed as follows.

3. Determination on the occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the entire pleadings, E is deemed to have violated its duty of care to stop the bus of this case and safely get on board the bus at the bus stop, and thereby, it is deemed that there was an accident of this case. Meanwhile, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that E is not negligent in the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a mutual aid business operator of the bus of this case, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the Defendant due to the accident of this case.

① Article 26(1)6 of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that “A transport employee shall not engage in an act of passing through a stop without stopping even though there are passengers waiting to board or alight.” However, bus drivers E, even though three persons, including the Defendant, waiting to stop a bus at the bus stop, was just closed in front of the stop, and only did it stop.

② In the instant case, passengers waiting at the bus stops, including the Defendant, appear not to have expressed their intent to board the bus in advance by getting out of the arms or shaking the hand. However, in general, bus passengers do not express their intent to board the bus in advance as above, but can easily find the passengers waiting on the bus because they waiting at the bus stops while waiting at the bus stops. Furthermore, given that the bus of this case was not stopped at the bus stops, E was sufficiently predicted that the bus of this case passes through the bus stops and that there was a passenger waiting to get off the bus.

③ During the close of the front door of the bus of this case, the Defendant was already driving along the bus side, and the front door was completely closed in the bid to get off the bus over the boundary of India and the roadway and to go beyond the center of two subscopies, and the accident of this case occurred in the place where the bus stop area was marked with a yellow solid line indicating the bus stop area in front of the bus stop, and in light of the fact that the Defendant exceeded the bus of this case and was adjacent to the bus of this case immediately before the accident, and other circumstances of the accident of this case, E was obliged to pay attention to enable the Defendant to safely board the bus, by examining the Defendant approaching the bus of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge; diagrams

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judges Hy-su