채무부존재확인
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 plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
1. Around 14:05 on April 30, 2016, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant driven a vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant”) and was driving in the vicinity of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, to the right side of the D Two-wheeled Automobile (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) driven by the Defendant while driving in the vicinity of the Dong Burial Station C.
Due to the foregoing accident, the costs of the Plaintiff’s loading and loading of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were damaged, causing damage equivalent to the repair costs and the costs of the vehicle leasing during the repair period. Of the repair costs, KRW 77,455 and KRW 160,000 for the total of KRW 237,455 for the repair costs exceeding the insurance proceeds paid from Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. during the repair period.
In addition, since the above accident does not cause damage to the defendant, it is sought to confirm that there is no obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to the above accident.
2. Determination
A. In a lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of a claim, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the defendant is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant, and to eliminate such apprehension and danger. Thus, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation must be a person who is likely to cause apprehension and danger in the plaintiff's legal status through dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations. The defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation has the benefit of confirmation against such defendant.
In this case where the plaintiff sought damages against the defendant on the premise that the defendant's vehicle had concealed the plaintiff's vehicle, the defendant denies the collision itself of both vehicles in front of the trial, thereby denying the establishment of the right to claim damages against the plaintiff as well as his liability for damages. Nevertheless, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the defendant, separate from the above claim for damages.