beta
Text
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist with respect to the accident described in the attached list.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is operating a mutual restaurant of "D" in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is operating the restaurant of "D" in Gangnam-gu.
At around 21:00 on August 19, 2015, the Defendant, while placing an order to do so with a civil language conference and red ginseng in the above restaurant, sled down to the bones of the bottled vessel provided by the Plaintiff as a service, while placing an order to do so.
E. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tag”) was potable.
The Defendant was treated (exploitation and cryp treatment) from August 22, 2015 to January 14, 2016, and spent KRW 1,785,600 in total as medical expenses.
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including the number of pages), Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4, each video of Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4, the entire purport of the pleadings, and the defendant defendant's assertion of the parties to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant sing the bones of this case was cut off, and the plaintiff did not notify the risks in advance. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the defendant's damage caused by the above wave.
Plaintiff
Nor can it be deemed that the instant cargo was cut off due to the new tag of this case.
The Plaintiff does not have any reason to believe that the instant cargo was cut due to the new tag of this case.
In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, where the burden of proof exists, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has asserted to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts of the legal relationship.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). In light of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleading, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone, which can be revealed through the following circumstances, was cut down due to the new attachment of this case.