2. With respect to traffic accidents listed in the separate sheet, between the Plaintiff and C.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, as the debtor, claims specified first in order to deny the fact that the cause of the financial obligation occurred, the defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and burden of proof as to the requirement of the legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the cause of the claim for the mutual-aid amount under the automobile mutual-aid agreement is denied, so the defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the requirement of the claim

B. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle operated the direction direction, etc. from the first lane to the second lane; and (b) the Defendant trusted that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is changing the vehicle to the second lane, thereby running in an open space between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the median line, and caused the instant accident by negligence going back to the center line without showing the right and the right of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; (c) as the occurrence of the instant accident conflicts with the foregoing negligence, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay mutual aid money under the automobile mutual aid agreement to the Defendant.

C. In the occurrence of a traffic accident, in a case where it is reasonable to believe that there is no abnormal behavior in light of all the circumstances at the time when the abnormal behavior such as traffic offense by the victim or by a third party is opened, the responsibility of the operator, public, or driver of the harmful vehicle shall be denied unless there is no traffic offense which caused the accident on the part of the perpetrator.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on September 5, 200