1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant company running passenger transport business, who drives the bus of the Defendant company.

B. On December 12, 2017, around 04:40 on December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) caused an accident on the part of the Defendant Company’s garage located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, by putting the money in front of the D bus stairs to be operated on that day; and (b) putting the bridge on the bridge on the bridge (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff suffered pulverization in the left-hand flag of abandonment due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On the date of the instant accident, the Defendant cleaned the bus at the Defendant Company, and did not cut the water remaining in the stairs, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, after thoroughly building the water tank, neglected the Plaintiff’s duty of care to have the bus drive. Even if the Plaintiff did not conduct water cleaning, at the time, there is a high possibility that water would occur in the bus due to the difference in the indoor temperature of the bus, and there is a high possibility that the vehicle might have water to run in the bus due to the difference in the indoor temperature of the bus, and the Defendant could sufficiently expect that the vehicle might have water to run in the bus at the same place. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take measures against the danger of the accident. (ii) The Defendant failed to properly install lighting facilities, thereby performing its duties in the environment where the Plaintiff was operated.

It was exceeded.

The defendant did not have a duty to establish sufficient lighting facilities to create a physical environment so as not to harm the life, body, and health of workers.

3. The defendant could have predicted that there is a danger that articles going up with heavy strings, but it is dangerous to put a dangerous mark on bus stairs or replace the rubber studs to prevent the collapse.