beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.11.07 2016가단63665

채무부존재확인

Text

1. With respect to the attached Form 1 traffic accident, the defendant's spacific chronological chronological chronology based on the attached insurance contract.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The defendant is a policyholder who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with a driver as shown in attached Form 2, and the plaintiff is an insurer.

B. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a traffic accident listed in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

다. 피고는 이 사건 사고 다음날인 2015. 3. 2. B의원에 방문하여 진료의사에게 이 사건 사고를 설명하면서 귀가 멍멍하고 머리가 띵하다고 호소하였다.

The Defendant was diagnosed as “patums, tensions, and tensions,” and was given the doctor’s opinion that the part of the Defendant was presumed to be satisfying.

피고는 2015. 3. 12. C한의원을 방문하여 귀가 멍멍하고 잘 들리지 않는다고 호소하고 침술을 받았다.

E. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant visited the non-humane department of the Daegu Veterans Hospital in order to undergo a luculation test, and was diagnosed in detail by the dialogic dystynasty in detail.

F. On November 18, 2015, the Defendant visited the Lee Non University's movable property hospital Lee Jae-in department to undergo a force test and received a diagnosis of the right depth from the right depth.

G. From September 19, 2016 to October 7, 2016, the Defendant received a diagnosis from the left-hand high-level office and the right-hand high-level office of the lower-ranking high-level office and the right-hand high-level office of the lower-level office after undergoing a net response test and a three-time examination from the transfer department of the movable property hospital in the Gyeyang University from the transfer department to the transfer department of the hospital.

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, specified the first claim in order to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and supporting the facts that

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). B.

The above evidence and this Court's ruling.