채무부존재확인
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The “C” of the judgment of the court of first instance is referred to in paragraph (1).
1. Grounds for entering this case by the court of the first instance as to this case are set forth in Article 3-2 of the first instance judgment.
B. Of the judgment part, the part regarding “the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation premised on the negligence of the driver of the instant passenger vehicle” is used as follows. In full view of the background and degree of damage of the instant accident, and the progress from the 5th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, the payment of the Plaintiff’s existing medical expenses is merely deemed to have been made in advance form as advance payment, and there is no ground to deem that the Plaintiff paid medical expenses by impliedly or explicitly agreed with the Defendant.
In addition, ‘the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance' is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation on the premise of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver of the instant passenger vehicle in the part 1 to be used. The Defendant asserts that the instant passenger vehicle driver was negligent in contributing to the occurrence of the accident, since the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff did not make efforts to avoid this, while driving the instant passenger vehicle in an abnormal behavior, such as moving the vehicle from three lanes to two lanes, adjacent to the two lanes, etc. while driving the instant passenger vehicle in the direction of the Defendant, while moving the vehicle from three lanes to two lanes.
However, even based on the evidence submitted by the Defendant, such as the video of No. 2, the driver of the instant car, even if it is based on the evidence of the Defendant, the driver of the instant car was in the normal operation of the vehicular center after completing the change of the two lanes, and only appears to have received the rear part of the right side of the instant car while the Defendant was driving in an abnormal manner, and it is difficult to deem that the instant car driver caused the instant accident in the course of changing the lane or passing ahead of the Defendant’s autoba.
(b).