2014Da226826, Confirmation of the existence of an obligation

2014Da226833 (Counterclaim)

Dong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

person

The person who received the lawsuit from the deceased A

1. G.

2. H:

3. I

4.

Jeju District Court Decision 2013Na4371, 2013Na4388 decided October 1, 2014

(Counterclaim) Judgment

April 9, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation related to the traffic accident of this case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the fact that the traffic accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle B driving the freight vehicle covered by the comprehensive insurance, and that there is no other evidence to support this, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation related to the traffic accident of this case, and dismissed all of the claim for insurance claim claimed by the defendants as a counterclaim.

2. The main sentence of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake shall be liable to compensate for damage if he/she has killed or injured another person due to the operation of the automobile," which provides that "if a person who is not a passenger dies or has injured, he/she shall not be held responsible to pay attention to the operation of the automobile, he/she shall not be negligent in paying attention to the operation of the automobile, but this provision shall not apply in cases where he/she proves that a person who is not a passenger of his/her own automobile or a third person, other than a driver, has intentionally or negligently caused any defect in the structure or skills of the automobile, and that a person who is not a passenger of another motor vehicle or a passenger of another motor vehicle is not a passenger of his/her own motor vehicle, without due care, is not liable to compensate for the death or injury of a person who operates the motor vehicle for the damage caused by the automobile accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64794, Mar. 26, 2004).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendants for the damages incurred by the Defendants due to the instant traffic accident caused by B as the insurer of the cargo vehicle driven by B, except in extenuating circumstances. However, if the Plaintiff proves that B was not negligent in paying due attention to the operation of the cargo vehicle, and that B was intentional or negligent to the network A or other third parties, the other party to the accident, and that there was an intentional or negligent act, the Plaintiff may be exempted from the liability. However, the burden of proving the above exemption from liability should be deemed to be the Plaintiff asserting

Nevertheless, under the premise that the burden of proving that the instant traffic accident occurred due to B’s negligence is against the Defendants, the lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Defendants failed to prove it, and dismissed all the Defendants’ counterclaims. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the exemption from liability under the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the burden of proof, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

A person shall be appointed.