채무부존재확인
1. It is a mixed-fluoral slocks for FClar vehicles generated from the E stations located in Jeonju-si E stations located in Jeonju-si.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a gas station business in the name of “E gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”) in Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si. Defendant B is an owner of F 300 Closllers car (hereinafter “instant passenger car”).
B. On October 15, 2013, Defendant C driven the instant car and stopped at the instant gas station, and asked G employees of the instant gas station to pay an amount of KRW 50,000 to the instant gas station. On October 15, 2013, the instant car, which is a vehicle exclusively used for transit, provided that the instant car, which is a vehicle exclusively used for diesel, is mixed with diesel and gasoline remaining in the instant car (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. Defendant C, without knowledge of the occurrence of the instant accident, turned on a dong-dong after completing the gas station oil and proceeded about about 3 to 5 meters, while reporting the gas station receipt received from the said G, and became aware of the occurrence of the instant accident.
The instant car did not operate from the accident to the time of the closing of argument in the instant case. The Defendants borrowed and used the instant car from the date of the instant accident to the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, and the loan expense is 252,000 won per day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5-3, Eul evidence 4, 5-5, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, and 3, witness G testimony and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion of the parties and their determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned did not constitute negligence on the part of the Plaintiff as it did not indicate that the Plaintiff was a transit vehicle to the Plaintiff, while Defendant C driving the instant vehicle, which is a diesel vehicle in the form of the small group, and driving the vehicle in front of gasoline, and it did not constitute negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendants arising from the instant accident did not exist, and even if so, the Plaintiff was negligent on the part of the Plaintiff.