(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.24 2016가단105213

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.24 2016가단105213

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C4.5 tons of Medi truck owned by B, and the Defendant is a person who has driven a D Pesta 458 Spanish car (hereinafter “Defendant driving vehicle”) at the time of a traffic accident listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On February 26, 2016, after the traffic accident listed in the attached list, the Defendant used 2,400,000 won per day rental fee, total rental fee of KRW 30,240,000, and the total rental fee of KRW 30,240,000, from the strawro string vehicle (2 days) and the Plue 458 vehicle (16 days) from the strawro string vehicle to the KCA.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, and Eul evidence No. 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the driver of the defendant's vehicle who is the driver of the defendant's vehicle and filed a claim with the plaintiff for a total rental fee of 30,240,000 won after renting the vehicle from the defendant's driver's vehicle in the bankruptcy resolution committee during the repair period. However, the defendant is not the owner of the defendant's vehicle or the vehicle user who entered into a lease contract with the owner, and the plaintiff is not obligated to pay damages equivalent to the rental fee in relation to the accident in this case. Even if the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages equivalent to the rental fee to the defendant, the lending fee claimed by the defendant is not based on the grounds

3. We examine ex officio the legality of the lawsuit of this case with regard to the legality of the lawsuit of this case.

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate in danger, in danger, and in danger, in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

In addition, the defendant of the confirmation lawsuit has legal disputes over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가단126072

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.25 2018가단5242058

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.04.12 2016가합1402

-전주지방법원 2017.04.28 2016가단34511

-대전지방법원 2020.10.16 2019나115431