beta
Text
1. On August 17, 2015, at around 15:11, a motor vehicle B in the vicinity of the highest direction from the 1stm name of iron-si to the high-speed direction.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C on May 24, 2015 to May 24, 2016 with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with the period of insurance.
B. C, while operating the Plaintiff’s automobile, caused the accident described in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant accident”) in which the rear part of the Defendant’s B Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s Motor Vehicle”) was received.
C. Each of the instant accidents asserts that the Defendant’s rent during the repair period of the Defendant’s automobile, the Plaintiff is 347,100 won (2 days of repair period x 173,50 won per day of lease) and the Defendant is 2,940,000 won (21 days of repair period x 140,000 won per day of lease).
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1- 4, and the ground for appeal
2. Determination
A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims first to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and supporting the fact that the legal relationship exists.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). B.
In this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the appropriate repair period of the defendant's automobile due to the accident in this case as 21 days beyond the scope of the plaintiff's identity only with the statement of No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant regarding the instant accident does not exceed KRW 347,100.
Nevertheless, since the defendant is dissatisfied with this, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.
3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion