청구이의
1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant's objection to the plaintiff.
1. The facts below the basis facts are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the inquiry reply to the fact-finding inquiry about the malicious damage insurance company of this court.
A. On April 28, 2013, at around 08:05, the Plaintiff driven his Track vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and entered the farm road adjacent to the CKa center located adjacent to the CKa center located adjacent to the Southern-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and entered the right side from the left side of the said CKa center, and there was a traffic accident that conflict between the Non-Party D Driving Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
B. The defendant is the insurer who is the head of D, and entered into an injury collateral contract with Nonparty E with non-party non-life insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”), and D is the beneficiary stipulated in the instant insurance contract.
C. E entered into an insurance contract containing a special agreement on indemnity for an insured motor vehicle even with Nonparty 1 Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Trush Damage Insurance”), and the Mrush Damage Insurance paid KRW 38,33,610 to D in the name of medical expenses incurred from the instant traffic accident, and filed a claim for the share of insurance proceeds to the Defendant. On December 28, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 10,952,460 to the Mrush Damage Insurance (hereinafter “instant indemnity amount”) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract.
On the other hand, the above insurance money paid to D with malicious damage insurance is equivalent to the medical expenses that did not reflect the ratio of negligence of D (i.e., the amount of offsetting negligence).
The Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against the Plaintiff (this Court Decision 2014Da58872) and the instant court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) according to its claim. The Plaintiff on February 10, 2014.