1. The Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant does not exist with respect to an accident listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the passenger transport business, which is a operator of C urban bus (hereinafter “instant bus”), and the Defendant boarded the instant bus on January 19, 2019.

B. The instant bus was proceeding in two lanes after getting passengers to board and alight from the instant bus stops located in Seo-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, but around 1:03 on January 19, 2019, GUV vehicles located in Seo-gu, Gwangju to prevent the collision between the first and second lanes.

C. At the time of rapid suspension of the bus of this case, the Defendant was seated behind the lower part of the bus of this case, and was golded.

D. At the bus stops in front of the lower door that occurs in the place of stop, the car stops together with other people.

On the same day, the Defendant: (a) received a medical certificate from the H Hospital to the effect that “to require 2 weeks’ medical treatment as the salt, tension, and tension of the scam,” and then requested the Plaintiff, who is the operator of the bus of this case, to compensate by telephone; and (b) the Plaintiff rejected this.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 10-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and supporting the facts that are necessary

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). On the other hand, a person operating a motor vehicle is not liable for all accidents that occurred during operation, but liable only for accidents that occurred due to operation among them.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da595 delivered on August 23, 1994). In other words, there should be causation between operation and injury.

In addition, the above legal principles are as follows: Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2, Gap evidence 6-2, and Gap.