beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.18 2013가단5081289

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is 37290,000 won against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

Reasons

1. On December 9, 2012, 200, the Plaintiff, as a DNA, was driving a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff, with the key of the Plaintiff’s vehicle kept in the dwelling atmosphere around December 21, 2012 without a driver’s license.

B around 23:00 on the same day, while driving at one high school near the Jindong in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, telecommunication cables owned by the Defendant were damaged.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 37290,000 due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) B is a minor of about 16 years and 9 months of age at the time of the accident in this case, and was capable of taking responsibility. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's key to the vehicle in which the plaintiff was kept in his domicile is driving the vehicle at the front of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was not capable of driving the vehicle before the occurrence of the accident in this case, and that the plaintiff was not able to anticipate that the vehicle in this case was driving before the occurrence of the accident in this case, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff violated the supervisory duty against B

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that the plaintiff neglected the supervisory duty against B, and the plaintiff is not liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion (Counterclaim Claim) is the father who raises B and has been negligent in neglecting his duty to supervise B to prevent him from driving without a license, and since there is a proximate causal relation with the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Defendant.

B. In light of the following circumstances, each of the statements Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant’s damage caused by the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s negligence.