1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the establishment of the liability for damages are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s “Defendant” as the “Plaintiff” as the “Plaintiff,” and (b) the April 19 through 21 as follows, except for the following: (c) the establishment of the liability for damages under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the partial entry; and (d) the Plaintiff, a pedestrian, has limited the Defendant’s liability to 65% of the amount of damages in consideration of the negligence that the Plaintiff violated the said obligation.

The defendant asserts that even though the plaintiff left the bus transit route, the defendant should consider the negligence more seriously since he neglected his duty to look around his mobile phone while neglecting his duty to look at his mobile phone.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff reported the mobile phone at the time of the instant accident, and even if the Plaintiff was negligent due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly examine the movement situation of the bus that was caused to use the mobile phone as alleged by the Defendant, the following circumstances such as the result of the verification by this court and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Defendant’s other bus prior to the instant accident, approaching the Plaintiff’s direction and stopped before finding the Plaintiff and stopping before finding the Plaintiff. Although the bus entered the garage through the entrance in the remote side where the Plaintiff was located and driven by B, it cannot be deemed that the distance from the entrance of the Plaintiff to the place where the instant accident occurred is considerably short to the point where the Plaintiff could not find the Plaintiff. Considering that the Plaintiff’s negligence is larger than the negligence of the Plaintiff, it seems that the aforementioned liability ratio is appropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.