1. In relation to the traffic accident stated in the attached list, there is no insurance payment obligation for the plaintiff against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (from June 13, 2014 to June 13, 2015) with respect to the automobile B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On December 2, 2014, around 16:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by C on the road located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, 1, 2014, concealed the Defendant’s driver’s DNA, leading the Defendant’s bridge to Oraba.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The defendant suffered injuries to salt, saves, etc. which are not left-hand on the left-hand side due to the instant accident.

From January 20, 2015 to July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,618,810 as the Defendant’s medical expenses, and paid KRW 4,824,790 as the damages.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. In light of the Defendant’s degree of injury related to the instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s insurance claim liability does not exist any longer, since the Plaintiff was fully compensated for medical expenses and damages paid by the Plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, specified the first claim in order to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts related to

In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the cause of the insurance claim due to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant is responsible for specifically asserting and proving that there was no claimant, such as the existence of positive and passive damages and consolation money, the causal relationship between damages and the instant accident, and king, etc.

However, despite the repeated order of the full bench, the defendant still does not properly assert or prove the occurrence of damages or the specific amount of damages.