1. On February 4, 2015, in relation to an accident that occurred near a parking lot located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) with the Dod Co., Ltd., and the Defendant is the owner of B Dodson vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. D around February 4, 2015: (a) around 14:14, 2015, the Plaintiff was parked while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the vicinity of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu parking lot.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the pertinent repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident is KRW 462,00,000, and KRW 270,000. The Defendant asserts that the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident is KRW 22,729,800, and KRW 18,000,00 for temporary closure damage.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the facts causing the debt by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the facts requiring the legal relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). With respect to the instant case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident exceeds KRW 462,00, and the rental fee exceeds KRW 270,000. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s repair cost and the obligation to pay the lending fee to the Defendant does not exist exceeding the above total of KRW 732,000 ( KRW 462,00,000).

As long as the defendant contests this, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.