채무부존재확인
1. The part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) that exceeds the following among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Basic facts 1) On February 17, 2013, the Defendant, who is a taxi engineer, stops a taxi at the right edge of the third line road near B in Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul and in order to help the passengers get off the taxi and get out of the taxi, opened a back door on the left side of the taxi in order to assist the passengers get out of the taxi, and opened a bus for C Driving the said third line, which driven on the road of the said third line (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff bus”).
(2) If the defendant's head faces on the right side of the defendant's head (hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case")
2) The Defendant suffered injuries, such as scopical salt, scopical salt, etc., by the instant accident.
3) The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into an automobile mutual aid agreement with respect to the Plaintiff bus. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, the result of the verification of video CDs by the court of the trial at the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. The plaintiff's assertion and restriction 1) The plaintiff's assertion and the plaintiff's main claim are merely about three-lanes of the three-lane road, and the defendant's reverse walked with the plaintiff's bus even though he was aware that the plaintiff's bus is driven by the plaintiff's bus. Thus, the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's unilateral negligence and there is no negligence against C.
Therefore, in relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay mutual aid money to the Defendant does not exist, thus seeking confirmation.
B. The Defendant’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s bus driver C was stopping a number of taxi prices in the vicinity of the place where the instant accident occurred, and the Plaintiff’s bus was operated on the right side due to the negligence of violating the Defendant’s duty of safe driving, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was placed on the left side of the Defendant’s taxi, and thus, the Plaintiff caused the Defendant’s damage caused by the instant accident to the Defendant.