(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단108482

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 2016.01.15 2015가단108482

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's obligation to pay damages to the defendant regarding the traffic accident stated in the attached Form shall be KRW 1,505,300.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with B and C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On May 4, 2015, around 22:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the Plaintiff, and the part on the left-hand side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle parked on the third line on the right-hand side of the moving direction, which was parked in the third line of the road, in front of the next trade complex of the agricultural and fishery products market in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The damages incurred to the Defendant due to the instant traffic accident by the Plaintiff’s assertion are 1,505,300 won which offsets negligence by calculating the Defendant’s negligence by 15% on the aggregate of wheelchairs and typhere repair costs, wages, such as inspection work for the third axis, and leave fees for two days.

B. In addition to the repair cost claimed by the Plaintiff, since the 3 axis and printing of the Defendant’s vehicle were damaged due to the instant traffic accident, damage occurred to KRW 8,613,00,00, including the repair cost for the 3 axis and printing, and the 1,114,260, in addition to the 2-day temporary closure fee claimed by the Plaintiff, damage occurred to KRW 1,114,260, in addition to the 14-day temporary closure fee claimed by the Plaintiff. In relation to the calculation of the amount of damage, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s negligence was 15%, but the place parked by the Defendant was not a parking-restricted zone, and

3. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the requirement of the relationship

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). The Defendant destroyed the 3 axis and printing of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant traffic accident, and total amount due to the 3 axis and printing repairs.

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 97다45259 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.17 2020나28336

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.06.01 2017가단32202

-부산지방법원 2019.06.07 2018나56541

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.04.20 2017가단116083

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.31 2017나62257