1. On April 3, 2018, in relation to traffic accidents between F vehicles and G vehicles in the Sinpo-si E around 10:30 on April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of Fwing III 1.2 tons of a vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. The Defendant, as the owner of a vehicle GJ III 1 ton (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), concluded H insurance contract with the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s vehicle with the insurance period from March 4, 2018 to June 4, 2018.

C. Around 10:30 on April 3, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle is parked on the land E at the Gunposi on the ground, while I is driving the Plaintiff vehicle.

After the Defendant’s vehicle, the vehicle was stopped.

At a point of time when the plaintiff's vehicle stops and 9 seconds, the defendant left behind the defendant's vehicle, and shocked the front part of the plaintiff's vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). 【No dispute exists; Gap evidence 1; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1, 3, and 5; Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 6; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s total negligence, and that the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay KRW 400,000 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, which did not cause damage to the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s fault is equivalent to 10% of the damages suffered by the Defendant, since the Plaintiff’s fault in relation to the instant accident is equivalent to 10% of the Plaintiff’s fault, such as: (a) the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the parking-stop prohibition zone; and (b) the Defendant’s fault was negligent in failing to comply with the duty to urge safety attention, such as without properly viewing

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, the Plaintiff, the obligor, first, denied the fact that the cause for the issuance of the obligation by specifying the claim.