1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the plaintiff's main claim seeking confirmation of the non-existence of insurance claim related to the traffic accident of this case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the fact that the traffic accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle B driving the cargo vehicle covered by the comprehensive insurance, and that there is no other evidence to support this, the court below rejected the plaintiff's main claim seeking confirmation of the non-existence of insurance claim related to the traffic accident of this case on the ground that the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the non-existence of insurance claim related to the traffic accident of this case was rejected, and all the defendants dismissed the claim for insurance claim seeking a counterclaim.

2. The main sentence of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "if a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake has killed or injured another person due to the operation thereof, he/she shall be liable to compensate for the damage therefrom." In principle, the driver shall not be negligent in paying attention to the operation of the automobile. However, this provision shall not apply to cases where a person who is not a passenger has died or injured, he/she has not been negligent in paying attention to the operation of the automobile, and he/she has proved that he/she or any third person other than his/her own or his/her driver has intentionally or negligently caused the occurrence of any defect in the structure or functional impairment of the automobile, and that any pedestrian or any passenger other than his/her own driver has been killed or injured, the victim