1. On February 26, 2017, at around 12:30, the Plaintiff near the Yandong Police Station in Chungcheongnam-dong, Gwangju.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On February 26, 2017, the Plaintiff driven a car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) around 12:30 square meters, driving the car in the direction of the use salary district in the vicinity of the Private-range Cultural Credit Cooperative of the Seoul Northern-dong Police Station, Seoul, and driving a four-lane from the two-lane to the four-lane change from the four-lane, against the Defendant’s DNA Oba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).

B. Due to the above traffic accident, the part on the right side of Defendant Otoba and the part on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were shocked each other, and the Defendant was written and suffered multiple scopic scoptyp

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no negligence on the plaintiff in the occurrence of the above traffic accident, and therefore there is no obligation to pay the plaintiff's damages to the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff is liable to pay the total amount of KRW 2 million as damages equivalent to the medical expenses and the lost profits caused by the above traffic accident, since it is recognized as negligence by the plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a monetary obligation as to the legitimacy of the assertion, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims the first time to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the claim, the defendant, who is the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the above traffic accident is deemed to be a serious accident where the defendant inevitably changed two lanes to four lanes, and entered the four lanes, and thereby, the left-hand part of the plaintiff's vehicle, which was located in the four lanes, was insignificant, and it was difficult for the defendant to predict and pay attention to the entry of four lanes rapidly next to the intersection.

Thus, the plaintiff is negligent in the occurrence of the above traffic accident.