1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2017, the following details are written by the head of the Daejeon Police Station for the confirmation of traffic accidents. [In front of the bus platform in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon Military Affairs Office, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon on October 8, 2017, the Plaintiff left four-lanes between the four-lanes in the direction of the artist’s house and the four-lanes in which E-city bus owned by the Defendant left the vehicle in the direction of Daejeon-gu, Daejeon Military Affairs Office, along with the fact that the Plaintiff conflicts with the Plaintiff’s body while leaving the vehicle in advance.];

B. The medical certificate issued by the F Hospital on October 16, 2017 with respect to the Plaintiff was issued. [The Plaintiff is diagnosed on October 13, 2017 as requiring stability and medical treatment for approximately three weeks in respect of a mountain tensions, cages, cages, etc. which are the date of outbreak on October 8, 2017] / [Grounds for recognition] of no dispute over the Plaintiff

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff does not bring the lawsuit of this case if the video of the certificate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is the video of the plaintiff No. 1 and 2, but each of the above images does not seem to have been shakings in front of the bus, and this is because each of the above images has been modified. In addition, according to evidence such as the bus driver's statement and diagnosis in an investigative agency, the plaintiff himself/herself suffered an injury due to the defect in the vehicle's door, and thus, he/she claimed

B. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff sustained an injury due to the negligence of the driver during bus riding.

According to Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that bus drivers in an investigative agency [the plaintiff's "satise" who was on board a bus in front of a bus due to the negligence closeing the front door in advance, and as a result, the plaintiff suffered injury for about three weeks] are subject to a disposition of not having the right to prosecute for the reason that bus drivers are subscribed to the mutual aid association, although it is acknowledged that the confession and diagnosis of bus drivers and images at the time of the accident are based on the facts of suspicion.

However, the video at the time of the accident is the document No. 2, and as the plaintiff also recognizes, it is the video.