1. The Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant in relation to a traffic accident stated in the separate sheet is KRW 1,500,000.

1. According to the fact that there is no dispute between the parties concerned over the facts of recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 7, the images of the evidence No. 8, the verification results of the evidence No. 1 of this court, and the whole purport of the pleadings, as a result of the verification of the evidence No. 1 of this court, it is acknowledged that the defendant was injured by the plaintiff's bus operated by the non-party B (hereinafter "the plaintiff's vehicle") on Nov. 28, 2017, when he was on board the plaintiff's bus operated by the non-party B (hereinafter "the plaintiff's vehicle") on the front of the bus No. 49, J. 1, 2017, and was temporarily damaged by the accident in the attached Form No. 1 (hereinafter "the accident in this case"), while preparing for getting off the vehicle, etc., for about six weeks.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred entirely by the defendant's negligence, and therefore, there is no liability for damages against the defendant. 2) The defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle caused the injury to the defendant by negligence without confirming the safety of passengers, and that the damage amounting to KRW 6,096,552, consolation money 2,000,000 has occurred to the defendant.

B. 1) The main text of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that “Any person who operates an automobile for his own sake shall be liable to compensate for damage caused by the operation thereof when he dies or she gets injured by another person.” Article 3 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that “if a passenger is injured, the passenger shall be exempted from liability when he gets injured by his intentional act or suicide,” and a person who operates an automobile for his own sake under the above Act shall be liable to compensate for damage to the injured person due to the operation unless there is any proof as to the above exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da3101, Feb. 9, 193).