채무부존재확인
1. With respect to the accidents listed in Appendix I, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) based on the insurance contract listed in Appendix II.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2:
The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with F with the same content as the attached Table II.
B. F, around 18:00 on July 27, 2013, while driving a G car and driving a two-lane from the H-to-H part of A driving, an accident, such as the attached Table I, which conflicts with H-to-H part of A driving, was occurred while driving a two-lane from the H-to-st part of the H-o part of the hen part of the hen part of the hen part of the hen part of the hen part of the hen part.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
A died on March 20, 2014, and Defendant B, a common property inheritor of the network A, inherited according to the inheritance shares of Defendant B 3/9, and the remaining Defendants inherited according to the inheritance shares of each 2/9.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred as the plaintiff, F was normally proceeding in accordance with the direct progress signal at the time of the accident of this case, but the accident of this case occurred due to entering the network A driver's Otoba signal and shocking the F driver's vehicle. The plaintiff's insurance payment liability against the defendants is nonexistent.
(2) The Defendants asserted that, inasmuch as the network A entered the road, the instant accident occurred by negligence of F, and accordingly, the network A died due to the climatic depression, etc., the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the insurance proceeds against the Defendants exists and also claims insurance proceeds as a counterclaim.
B. As to whether the instant accident occurred due to F’s negligence, and whether the deceased Gap first entered the instant accident site, the following facts are insufficient to acknowledge it in light of the following circumstances. There is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and rather, evidence of evidence of evidence Nos. 3 through 11 (including each number) are comprehensively taken into account: (a) the instant accident occurred due to F’s negligence; and (b) the deceased Gap’s prior entry into the instant accident site.