(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.27 2016가합201542

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.27 2016가합201542

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff does not have an obligation to compensate the Defendant for an accident listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs passenger transport business, and is the owner of Daegu-B urban bus (hereinafter “instant bus”), and C is a driver belonging to the Plaintiff.

B. At around 20:50 on February 1, 2016, C driving the instant bus and driving the Daegu Dong-gu Ban-gu Ban-dong-dong-dong-gu-gu-gu-si-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “instant accident”) with a speed of about 23 km to the speed of about its speed of 23 km from each four-lanes. The Defendant, who was located in India, her own strost and back, her head was faced with the front part of the right side of the instant bus, and the instant bus passed as it was, caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as an injury to the left-hand satisfaction and alley in need of seven weeks of treatment due to the instant accident, and received treatment from the F Hospital or G G G G G G G G G G G GG from the date of the accident until June 17, 2016, and accordingly, the Plaintiff incurred treatment amounting to KRW 7,975,180.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1's video, Gap evidence 2 to 4's each, the purport of whole pleading, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s unilateral negligence without fault in operation C, and that the Plaintiff did not have a duty to compensate the Defendant for the damages related to the instant accident, and that the Defendant asserted that there was negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was liable to compensate the Plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the financial obligation occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the requirement of

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). Accordingly, the defendant is the defendant.

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 97다45259 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.23 2016가단27898

-대구지방법원 2015.05.07 2015고단783

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.09.18 2018가단90905

-서울서부지방법원 2018.05.15 2017가단233675

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.02.06 2011가단13551