채무부존재확인
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation based on an accident listed in the separate sheet against the Defendant does not exist.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive driving insurance contract with the insurance period from May 2, 2018 to May 2, 2019 by providing “C” as the insured, and the Defendant is the owner of D vehicle.
B. On July 6, 2018, the Defendant: (a) requested a substitute driver to C on behalf of the Defendant; and (b) during driving of the Defendant, E, an agent driver of C, was involved in the occurrence of an accident and shocking with the side of the vehicle driven in the vertical direction by the fronter of the driver of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On July 12, 2018, the Defendant visited the F Hospital and diagnosed as “the high-speed on the side side of the scarcity,” and received human salvology on the 16th day of the same month, and received hospitalized treatment for 45 days in total.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 9 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the result of the appraisal commission of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 9 and the head of G hospital, the defendant visited members of Hary prison division on June 21, 2018, and received medical treatment, and there is no clear opinion that he/she visited the F Hospital and visited the F Hospital, but there is no obvious opinion that he/she would suffer human injury. The substitute driver stated that "the defendant was on board the vehicle from the beginning with his/her her her bridge and her bridged with his/her bridge." According to the medical record appraisal, according to the medical record appraisal, the defendant's human wave heat was found to have been by the spathnosis around June 21, 2018.
Therefore, the evidence presented by the defendant alone cannot be deemed to have suffered bodily injury due to the accident of this case. As long as the defendant contests this and claims compensation for damages, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.