A. The Plaintiff is the driver of Hi30 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff vehicle, and Defendant D is the driver of the I SM5 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and Defendant F is the mother of Defendant D, and the following:

Defendant 1 was accompanied by Defendant 1 on the day of the instant accident.

B. Around 10:55 on June 21, 2017, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G, the Plaintiff shocked the part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was stopped on a double level to yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. As the instant accident was insignificant and thus, the Defendants were not injured, the Plaintiff is not obligated to compensate the Defendants for human damage caused by the said accident, and is seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that they had a duty to compensate the Defendants for personal damage, since they suffered from an injury to savinal salt, etc. due to shock caused by the instant accident.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has asserted to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the first claim in advance, the Defendants, the creditor, bear the burden of assertion and proof as to the facts of the requirement of the legal relationship.

In the instant case, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of the health belt, the aforementioned evidence, and evidence Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle seems to have stopped at the time of the instant accident, and to have driven at a speed of less than 8 km,