beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.01.23 2016가단4956

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) paid KRW 48,601,776 to the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from February 8, 2016 to January 23, 2018.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner and the driver of a vehicle with Cent Pest Pest (hereinafter “hesting vehicle”), and the Defendant is the driver of D E (hereinafter “hicking vehicle”).

B. On February 8, 2016, around 11:57, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a sea-going vehicle from the area of G Hospital located in the Macheon-si F in a two-lane to the one-lane; and (b) changed the course of the vehicle, the Plaintiff caused an accident where the head wheels part on the right side of the damaged vehicle was shocked to the left side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 8, 2016, the Defendant requested H to repair a damaged vehicle caused by the instant accident, and transferred the vehicle to H on March 25, 2016 after completing repair and exchange at H on March 25, 2016.

I, from March 26, 2016, performed repair and construction, and delivered the vehicle to the defendant on April 12, 2016.

On February 8, 2016, the Defendant entered the damaged vehicle into H, and used the damaged vehicle in this case and the K with the same rank for 30 days from February 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the witness's testimony, the whole purport of pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding that the accident of this case was caused by the plaintiff's negligence, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damage suffered by the defendant.

B. In full view of the collision parts of the two vehicles recognized by each evidence mentioned prior to the limitation of liability, and the driver’s statements, the instant accident appears to have occurred when the Defendant moved to the first line and confirmed the direction of another vehicle and did not operate at an appropriate speed while checking the direction of the other vehicle. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s responsibility in the instant accident as 80% and the Defendant’s responsibility as 20%.

C. The plaintiff alleged by the party to the scope of liability for damages is 17.0% of the cost of adequate repair of the damaged vehicle.