채무부존재확인
1. On January 3, 2015, between B and C vehicles that were incurred near the road in the straight luminous basin at the time of light illumination at around 13:40.
1. The occurrence of the liability for damages (based on the recognition of the fact) did not dispute, Gap 2 and 3, Eul 2, and Eul 2, as a result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the Kuro University Hospital and the head of the Kuro University Hospital, D, on January 3, 2015, while driving B vehicles at around 13:40 and driving the B vehicle in the vicinity of the Manchip Station at the time of light lighting (hereinafter "the accident in this case"), and due to the accident in this case, the defendant suffered from the right shoulder, the right shoulder, the refluor, the luor, and the luoral pan.
The Plaintiff is an insurer of the automobile comprehensive insurance for automobile B, and is liable for the Defendant’s damages caused by the instant accident.
Although the Plaintiff asserts that negligence should be taken into account, such as the Defendant’s sudden impulse and the safety bell do not appear, it is difficult to see that the Defendant did not wear the safety bell at the time of the instant accident in light of the vehicle shock load, the Defendant’s injury load, etc., and there is no evidence to see that the Defendant was a sudden brake. Therefore, it is rejected.
2. The amount below the sources for the convenience of calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be discarded, and the present price calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the discount method which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.
It shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained.
사실인정의 근거 : 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 4∽7호증, 을 1∽4, 6∽8, 16호증, 9호증의 1의 각 기재, 강동성심병원장, 고려대학교 구로병원장에 대한 각 신체감정촉탁결과, 감정인 E에 대한 감정촉탁결과, 안산세무서장에 대한 과세정보제출명령 회신, 국민건강보험공단, 보험개발원의 각 문서제출명령 회신, 변론 전체의 취지
A. Although the Defendant asserts that the Defendant had received KRW 7,295,670 per month by concurrently operating mobile device wholesale business and housing construction and sales business, the Defendant had received KRW 7,295,670 per month. However, even in calculating the lost profit of the business income earner of relevant legal principles, the lost income is to work.