채무부존재확인
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
On June 25, 2011, 20:30, G apartment B, 103-dong roads.
1. Determination on the facts of recognition and the counterclaim
A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "21.5% (=50% x 0.5%) of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance as "21.5% (=43% x 0.5)" of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance; "21.5%" of the 11th judgment as "21.5% (=43% x 0.5)"; the court of first instance as a result of the fact inquiry as to the case of the company of the court of first instance as a result of lack of recognition of the plaintiff's assertion; and the fact inquiry as to the 2-B(2)(2)(2)(2) of the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, except for the case where the 2-B(6)(20
B. The part of the Doking treatment expenses 195,620 won paid by the Defendant should be excluded from the damages to be compensated by the Plaintiff.
However, in this case where the medical expenses incurred from the accident in this case and the medical expenses incurred from king are not distinguished by the statement of the medical expenses, the determination shall be made normatively. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the rate as 30% in light of the parts and degree of the injury, treatment period, etc.
In the calculation, the defendant's medical expenses to pay the plaintiff are 136,934 won (=195,620 won for the treatment expenses of the king x (1- 30% for the king x 1- 30% for the king) and less than the won).
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant damages in proportion to 92,728,531 won as damages (i.e., 86,845,944 won as property damages - deducted 3,117,413 won as solatium 9,00,000) and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from June 25, 2011, which is the date of the instant accident, to June 18, 2016, where it is deemed reasonable for the Plaintiff to dispute the existence and scope of his/her duty to perform. < Amended by Act No. 10533, Mar. 18, 2016>
2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the principal claim is the principal claim of this case.