A. The Plaintiff is the representative of D’s business entity that manufactures automobile parts. The Defendant purchased the “Faza”, which is the automobile parts manufactured by the Plaintiff’s business entity, from E, and installed it in C’s possession of the Defendant. On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that, around 02:00, the Plaintiff was suffering from the accident described in the order while driving a road adjacent to the Sincheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do.

B. However, after the accident of this case, the Plaintiff’s recovery and review of the “Faccaccine” and as a result, it was not possible to find any defect in the above parts, and there is no clear evidence that the accident of this case occurred due to the cause of the above parts.

C. The instant accident is presumed to have occurred due to the driver’s violation of the duty of care due to the driver’s failure to drive, continuous driving, driving, driving on bridge, use of handphone, etc.

Therefore, even if there is no liability for damages arising from an accident described in the order against the Plaintiff, the Defendant sought damages against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking the absence of the above obligation.

2. The judgment deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) is deemed to have led to the confession of all the plaintiff's assertion in accordance with Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the defendant was present only on the date of conciliation after receiving a duplicate of the plaintiff's written application for conciliation and did not thereafter give any answer to the plaintiff's application for conciliation, and did not submit a specific written answer despite the court's order of correction.