1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,006,721 and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2017, a bus driver C, who belongs to the Cheongnam-si, Busan Metropolitan City, and is driving a B bus around 18:20 on October 13, 2017 (hereinafter “instant bus”), has a bus stop at the right side of two-lanes, which are five-lane bus stops in front of the bus stops in Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, and three general lanes are more than one other.

In accordance with the first lane, the road was proceeding from the boundary of the opposite bank to the boundary of the opposite bank.

B. At the same time, buses were stopped at the two-lanes in order to reduce passengers' getting on and off the bus, but the Defendant, who gets off another bus at the time-mast, was set off between the bus stopped in order to cross without permission, and was faced with the right edge of the bus at the right edge of the instant bus which was driven mainly.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) C.

The Plaintiff, the insurer of the bus of this case, paid KRW 2,229,690 to the Defendant for the medical expenses for the injury suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s total negligence, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the insurance proceeds.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff paid insurance money to the defendant 2,229,690 won, which should be returned to the defendant in unjust enrichment. Meanwhile, since the defendant claims the negligence of bus driver, it is necessary to seek confirmation that there is no obligation to pay the above insurance money.

3. Determination

A. ex officio, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when the judgment of confirmation is the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s current apprehension and danger, and it is also possible to bring an action for performance.