beta
Text
1. In relation to the traffic accident stated in the separate sheet, the plaintiff's damage to automobile fall on the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is the driver of the B-motor vehicle damaged by the traffic accident stated in the attached Form (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the Plaintiff is the insurer of the C-motor vehicle that caused the instant accident.
B. The initial registration date of the damaged vehicle is May 12, 2014; KRW 4,481,000 was required to repair the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident; and the value of the vehicle as of the date of the accident is KRW 28,00,000.
C. The Plaintiff’s automobile insurance clause (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) provides that “where expenses for repairing a motor vehicle exceed 20% of the value of the motor vehicle immediately before the accident occurred, 15% of the repair cost shall be paid for the motor vehicle which is not more than one year after the release, and 10% of the repair cost shall be paid for the motor vehicle which is more than one year but not more than two years after the release.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that when calculating the market price of the damaged vehicle in accordance with the terms and conditions of this case, there is no damage to the damaged vehicle, and therefore there is no obligation to pay the substitute insurance money for the damage caused by automobile decline. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the damaged vehicle was registered as the accident vehicle and the actual value of the damaged vehicle was decreased, the compensation for this part should be granted.
B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims the first time to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the fact of the occurrence of the obligation, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the fact of the requirement of legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). 2) In light of the above facts established, there is no loss of market price decline that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant when calculating the content of the
As to this case, the defendant.