beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.01.16 2017가단322608

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant does not exist in relation to the traffic accident stated in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 20, 2017, the Defendant driven Oral Ba B (hereinafter “Defendant Oral Ba”) around 16:2 on June 20, 2017, and proceeded along two-lanes on the road front of the Busan Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan University, which is located in the 45-ro of the Yongsan-gu, from the irrigation-dong bank to the irrigation-distance bank, the Defendant changed the vehicle line to the one-lane and proceeded along the one-lane, resulting in an accident that conflicts with the left-hand part of the front-hand part of the C driver’s Dcab (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), which was proceeding along the one-lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the instant accident, the Defendant suffered injuries, such as duplicating duplicities, duplicating damage, duplicating duplicities, etc.

C. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 to 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion conflicts with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the same lane without any signal from Defendant Orala, which driven the two-lanes of the instant accident, by entering the same lane, and driving the same lane. There is no negligence on the Plaintiff’s vehicle with respect to the instant accident.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable for damages against the defendant.

B. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle alleged by the Defendant is negligent in relation to the instant accident, since the instant accident occurred while driving the Plaintiff vehicle at a high speed without yielding the vehicle while recognizing the Defendant’s intention to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is unreasonable.

3. As a driver of a motor vehicle operating on a road, it is common to believe that other motor vehicles maintain their car lines and maintain them in normal condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da35894, Feb. 10, 1998), barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da35894, Feb. 10, 1998).