1. Of the principal lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the part on the claim for confirmation of existence of the obligation to pay insurance proceeds against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. An ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of an obligation among the principal suit, the Plaintiff filed a claim for confirmation as to whether the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay insurance money to the Defendant with respect to an accident described in the purport of the claim. However, at the same time, the Plaintiff filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the insurance money that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay insurance money to the Defendant.

Thus, the above part of the claim for confirmation of existence of the obligation is unlawful, since there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The judgment on the merits and the counterclaim shall be deemed as well.

A. On February 8, 2017, around 09:00 on February 8, 2017, an accident occurred where a private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in C driver’s vehicle in the atmosphere during the signal signal at one-lanes in front of the welfare center located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Busan-do, where the Defendant driver’s vehicle was located (hereinafter “instant accident”) leading to the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B) After the instant accident occurred, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to receive the insurance by asserting that the Plaintiff had a shouldered, and the Defendant received treatment by the right revolving revolving in D Hospital, etc. with the Plaintiff’s guarantee of payment. C) The Defendant’s physical examination result reveals that the Defendant’s physical examination result was confirmed to be limited to the Defendant’s body to the right-to-hand movement on the right-hand side of D Hospital, and that the rate of loss of labor ability is anticipated to be 18%, but it appears that it was caused by

However, as a result of the fact-finding on the above appraiser, it is reasonable to view the degree of contribution of the accident as 0% when the entire process takes place, even though it is a serious state of the change of the revolving the back of the back of the time, and it is reasonable to regard the degree of contribution of the accident as 10%.