채무부존재확인
1. The Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant due to a traffic accident stated in the separate sheet is KRW 2,26,800.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with B on the Plaintiff’s part of the Plaintiff’s private taxi vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).
B. On July 24, 2014, B stopped the Plaintiff’s side on the part of the passenger vehicle in front of the shipping bus hotel, and opened the driver’s seat to the driving lane, which was driven by the Defendant while driving on the road at the same time, and driving on the road at the same time, she shocked the string of the Defendant’s Dbenz EL200 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”). On the same day, the Defendant requested the Defendant to repair the Defendant’s side vehicle to Lone Star Co., Ltd. on the same day.
8.9. The repairs have been completed.
C. The cost for a siren of the same kind of vehicle as the Defendant’s vehicle for one to two days is KRW 580,000 per day.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 1, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a claim and judgment, the defendant, the creditor, must prove the facts that the legal relationship is required.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the above accident exceeds KRW 700,000,000, in which the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s vehicle was damaged to the extent that it is necessary for the Defendant to siren the same vehicle as the Defendant’s vehicle with the same kind of vehicle as the Defendant’s vehicle due to the above accident (i.e., unless the Defendant’s vehicle was damaged and repaired after the arrival of the replacement part, unless the vehicle was in a situation difficult to operate due to damage, it is difficult to view that the replacement period takes place after the arrival of the replacement part.) According to the above recognition, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle on the part of the said accident exceeds one day’s negligence.
Therefore, the plaintiff was caused by the above accident.