채무부존재확인
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
On December 20, 2010, 08:20, the Cmaart distance in Jeju City B.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. At around 08:20 on December 20, 2010, D driven a K5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and was straighted from the northwest side to the Haduk Elementary School according to the route signal from the northwest side to the Haduk Elementary School, D caused the Defendant to suffer an injury, such as the Hadneum dume, etc., by collision with the Defendant’s Faurt-Wn-Wn-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
The Plaintiff, as an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with D with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 4,766,020 to Gwon, Jeju University Hospital, and H Hospital, from January 27, 2011 to May 7, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 4-1, 2, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 6-1, 2, 4 through 7, 9, and 10, as a result of the on-site inspection by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the occurrence of liability for damages and the recognition of the above restriction, the Plaintiff is liable for damages sustained by the Defendant due to the instant accident.
However, the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence adopted earlier, namely, the accident site of this case, namely, the private distance intersection, the vehicle of this case was left straight and the accident of this case occurred while the vehicle of this case was left straight, the accident site of this case was shocked to the front of the left side of the vehicle of this case, and the defendant asserted that the accident of this case occurred in violation of the plaintiff's signal. However, the defendant did not regard that the vehicle of this case was driven by the employee of the defendant vehicle insurance company of this case, who was dispatched to the traffic accident site of this case after the accident of this case, because the defendant himself, could not be seen as driving the plaintiff's vehicle during his right-hand, and it was different.