1. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant with respect to a traffic accident that occurred on March 29, 2016 between the Defendant and B.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 29, 2016, around 13:50 on March 29, 2016, B, a taxi engineer affiliated with the Plaintiff, was in contact with the Defendant’s driver, who was in the signal atmosphere, while driving a taxi for business use owned by the Plaintiff, due to the failure to properly operate the hub while stopping for the signal atmosphere (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On the same day, the Defendant visited E members to undergo approximately two weeks’ diagnosis of salt and tensions for treatment. On April 1, 2016, the Defendant received the estimate of the repair cost of KRW 718,122 in total with respect to the exchange cost and repair cost, such as a panion and discharge discharge.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5

2. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was extremely minor contact, the Defendant demanded all parts, other than the part part of the damaged part of the vehicle, as repair cost, and the injury was caused by the instant accident. This is considered as a false principal place. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the instant accident, seeking confirmation of the absence of the obligation to pay damages to the Defendant.

3. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation for the cause of the claim, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has asserted to deny the fact that the cause of the claim occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the facts

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). In light of the fact that back to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops in order to ensure the signal atmosphere, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in contact with the Defendant’s vehicle using a bracul operating channel, it appears that the speed of the Plaintiff vehicle was not rapid at the time of the accident. According to the video of the evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2, following the accident, the vehicle’s contact area is very minor, and the vehicle’s body is displayed and entered, etc., it seems that the shock of the shock, such as the vehicle’s body is visible.