beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 32,458,126 to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 5% per annum from December 19, 2011 to June 12, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (1) On December 19, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) was aboard a B bus affiliated with a chemical transport (hereinafter “Defendant-Defendant vehicle”); (b) while getting off the bus in front of the 1st office located in the front of the Dong-dong office in the name of light, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a heavy-water frame, a stove, a stove, and a tension, by getting out of the bus, by getting out of the bus, when a driver of the said bus was set up a door while leaving the door.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). (2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity which has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 through 7, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]
B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle confirms that all passengers getting out of the bus driver, and even if the operator has a duty to open the bus entrance and start the bus, it can be recognized that the instant accident occurred as it starts as it was, in violation of this provision, while the Plaintiff was preparing to get out of the rear door while opening the bus, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.
C. However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, did not properly confirm the safety and was found to have been left from the defendant's vehicle that began to move, and such error of the plaintiff was caused by the occurrence of the accident in this case.
The Defendant’s liability is limited to 90% by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s negligence, the developments leading up to the instant accident, the degree and degree of the injury and the aftermath disability, and the progress of treatment.
In regard to this, the defendant argued that it is more likely that the plaintiff's negligence is higher than that of the plaintiff, since the plaintiff made up of the entrance stairs late or exceeded the right time. However, the plaintiff's proof No. 1 is proved.