채무부존재확인
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
November 2017 between the defendant and the non-party D Driving E-si.
1. On November 22, 2017, around 19:30 on the basis of the facts D, driving a car for business use owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”) and driving a 259-way road (referring to an intersection where signal lights are installed) at the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, in the direction of a golding direction from the direction of the regular course, while driving the front line from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, by negligence, such as not examining the front line properly.
The part of the F-Motor vehicle's F-Motor vehicle's F-motor vehicle's U.S. drive (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle") in the atmosphere was inferred into the front part of the Plaintiff's vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, the entry or video of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7, the result of the commission of the delivery of documents to the Chief of Gwangju District Police Station in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is not liable for damages since the accident of this case cannot be deemed to have suffered the injury, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not be liable for damages to the defendant. The defendant asserts that the damage of KRW 9,16,438,438, including the sum of KRW 1,521,440, the vehicle repair cost of KRW 1,256,00, the daily income of KRW 1,388,998, the daily income of this case (=13 days (6 days for hospitalization treatment period of KRW 7 days) x 106,846 per day for urban daily wage) x 5,00,000, the solatium amount of KRW 5,16,438.
3. Determination
A. (1) In principle, the main sentence of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that “When a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake has killed or injured another person due to the operation thereof, he/she shall be liable to compensate for the damages.”
However, in case of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims first and denies the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant who is the creditor, bears the responsibility of assertion and certification as to the requirement of the legal relationship. < Amended by Act No. 5054,