beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.04.26 2014가단221585

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 57,988,470 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from October 3, 2012 to April 26, 2016.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s C Driving Vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

2) Around 12:40 on October 3, 2012, 2012, B, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and neglecting the duty of Jeonju City, while driving the westdo Highway at the area of the Seosan Station located in the Seog-ri, Seog-ri, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul, the lower part of the Defendant’s DV (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) that was the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(3) The Defendant was diagnosed in the Slovas Slovas Slovas Ba et al. immediately after the instant accident, and was re-paid on October 16, 2012. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds of recognition, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant asserted is merely the Defendant’s king, which has no causal relationship with the instant accident. The Plaintiff’s compensation liability against the Defendant does not exist in excess of the aforementioned monetary amount, on the ground that there is no causal relationship between the instant accident and the instant accident, in addition to the sum of KRW 1,478,300, other 136,000, and KRW 300,000, other 136,000, and KRW 300,000, and KRW 1,914,300.

B) The Defendant’s assertion that the accident in this case occurred, resulting in the loss of labor ability, etc., and thus, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is responsible for compensating the Defendant for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to the accident in this case. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the following: (a) the facts of the recognition and the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3; (b) the results of the commission of physical examination to the head of the Macheon-do University Hospital; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.