beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.04.29 2015가단22234

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 1, 2015, around 10:20, the Defendant attached the loading of the Obaba (hereinafter “the instant Obaba”) operated by the Plaintiff on the street in front of the DNA located in the Gu C (hereinafter “the instant Oba”), but the Plaintiff was running in excess of the Defendant.

B. At the time of the instant accident at 86 years of age, the Defendant suffered injury to the Gyeong-gu’s salt, tension, etc.

C. KB damage insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the instant Obane paid KRW 1,471,880 to the Defendant as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant exceeded the error of the plaintiff's negligence as to the defendant's injury because it exceeded the error of the plaintiff's assertion.

Nevertheless, since the KB Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the Obane, is likely to cause damage to the Plaintiff, such as premium increase, etc., by paying KRW 1,471,880 to the Defendant, thereby seeking confirmation of the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the instant accident.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s overall purport of pleading as a whole: (a) it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff to have operated the Plaintiff as it was without recognizing that the Defendant was able to load the Plaintiff’s automobile; (b) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was not guilty of the instant accident; (c) it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was not guilty of the instant accident; and (d) the Plaintiff is obliged to exercise the duty of care to prevent the traffic accident as a driver of the Oratob in the event of operation; and (e) the Plaintiff should have fulfilled the duty of care to take account of the surrounding the operation of the Oratob in the event of operation.