채무부존재확인
1. On October 10, 2017, at around 21:05, the Plaintiff is involved in a traffic accident that occurred from the 516 Mamna-ro, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 21, 2017, the Defendant driven a Down Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 21:05, and driven a five-lane 5-lane 4-lane 4-lane 516 in the Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, with the flow of the five-lane 5-lane 4-lane, and changed the said three-lane to the 3-lane, the front portion of the U.S. bus, which proceeded with the three-lane of the said road to the 3-lane of Seo-gu, Seo-gu (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) in the front portion of the U.S. vehicle driving seat.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
The Plaintiff, a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff, paid the Defendant totaling KRW 1,33,310 for medical expenses incurred from the instant accident until June 11, 2018.
C. The Defendant’s assistant intervenor is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case is an accident caused by the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, because the defendant vehicle driving in the direction of one lane from five lanes to one lane in violation of the method of changing its course and the accident occurred due to the shocking of the plaintiff vehicle in the front of the plaintiff vehicle driving the three lanes, and thus, the plaintiff's liability for damages against the defendant based on the accident of this case does not exist, and the medical expenses that the plaintiff paid to the defendant should be returned to the defendant in unjust enrichment.
As to this, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor could prevent the accident if the Plaintiff’s driver fulfilled the duty of front-time watch, and immediately operated the brake system, or changed the vehicle to an adjacent lane, etc. The instant accident is the case where the Plaintiff’s negligence and the Defendant’s negligence were concurrent.