logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.05.11 2015가단110904
채무부존재확인
Text

1.(a)

On January 4, 2015, around 15:48, 2015, B motor vehicles are C Obaba in the Masan-dong Seoul except Seoul.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) part 1 of the Plaintiff’s automobile B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) set the I and the insurance period from October 31, 2014 to October 31, 2015, and Plaintiff 1 entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a motor vehicle. 2) An order that Plaintiff 1 receive COba (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) owned by the Defendant while operating the Plaintiff’s motor vehicle.

The accident described in subsection (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred.

3) Defendant 1 caused by the instant accident asserts that the Plaintiff was 4,080,000 won, and the Defendant was 20,000,000 won, respectively. b. F cars (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”).

1) The Plaintiff entered into an automobile type insurance contract with J and Plaintiff ②.

2) The JJ is: (a) GOba owned by the Defendant while operating an automobile by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant 2”).

(2) The accident described in Section 1.(b) of the order received (hereinafter “instant accident”).

3) Defendant 2, Defendant 2, who caused the instant accident, asserts that the rental fee for the repair period is KRW 1,750,000, and the Defendant is KRW 7,000,000, respectively.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, 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 the instant case, beyond the scope of the Plaintiff’s identity, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1’s repair cost of Oral Ba reaches KRW 20,000,000 due to the instant accident, ② Defendant 2 caused by the instant accident reaches KRW 30,00,000, the repair cost of Oral Ba, and ② Defendant 2 caused by the instant accident reaches KRW 350,000.

arrow