On November 27, 2016, at around 20:30 minutes, the Plaintiff operated the clockium on the three-lane road located in the 50-lane Seoul metropolitan cycle, the third-lane road located in the 126km road, which is owned by the Plaintiff, to prevent traffic accidents. At that time, the Plaintiff was engaged in spraying the clockium on the road for the prevention of traffic accidents. At that time, the drick DNA car volume owned by the Defendant was driving the said three-lane road, leading the Plaintiff’s clock vehicle by driving the said three-lane road, or there is no dispute between the parties, and it is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in the statement in subparagraph 1.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff suffered damages from the repair cost of KRW 4,590,000 due to the damage to the main part of the Defendant’s passenger car tank, which caused the Plaintiff’s calcium spraying to Defendant’s vehicle quantity (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had the intent to pay the calcium cost of KRW 100,000 due to the Plaintiff’s calcium spraying, but did not cause any damage to Defendant’s vehicle quantity.

Judgment

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has made a claim first to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proof of proof

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s snow vehicle is driving along the three-lane road of the third-lane road, and the Defendant’s vehicle amount was driving along the first-lane road of the third-lane road, the clock calium that the Plaintiff spreads to the Defendant’s vehicle quantity solely on the written statements and images indicated in No. 2, No. 3, No. 4-1, and No. 4-2, respectively.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the repair cost of KRW 4,590,000 has been damaged to the Defendant’s automobile quantity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In the end, this is eventually.