채무부존재확인
Attached Form
With respect to the accidents described in paragraph 1 of the list, the insurance contract described in paragraph 2 of the same list shall be extended.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to D and E-U passenger cars.
B. At around 13:14, August 5, 2019, D driven the above vehicle and left at the two-lanes of the F apartment road in front of the CF apartment at the time of demonstration, and shocked the G AW-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(An accident listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table; hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").
At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s Raging equipment owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant equipment”) was lost.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant equipment cannot be deemed destroyed due to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to pay insurance proceeds is not nonexistent.
B. Since the instant equipment was damaged by the Defendant’s instant accident, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 17,686,272, and KRW 10,452,487 to repair the instant equipment (i.e., KRW 17,686,272, KRW 10,452,487) and damages for delay.
3. First of all, the instant equipment was destroyed by the instant accident only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6.
It is insufficient to recognize that the cost of repairing the instant equipment reaches KRW 28,138,759 even if the equipment was damaged or destroyed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The evidence No. 1 does not directly examine the instant equipment, which is the manufacturer of the instant equipment, Germany’s “H” corporation, but merely damages the instant equipment when the Defendant’s inquiry was caused by e-mail or e-mail.