1. The Plaintiff does not have an obligation to pay insurance money to the Defendant with respect to the accident stated in the attached sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the owner of a motor vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the former owner of the place where the accident specified in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred and the latter manager of the communications line.

B. On November 13, 2015, around 14:57, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven a road near C in the Southern-si, Namyang-si, and the front owner installed therein (hereinafter “the front owner of the instant case”) caused the upper part of the vehicle. The Plaintiff’s vehicle and the following vehicle were transferred to the front owner, resulting in the occurrence of an accident involving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the second owner of the vehicle under the front owner.

C. The defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is responsible for the damage of the previous owner of the vehicle, and claims the restoration cost against the plaintiff who is the insurer.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 5, witness D’s partial testimony, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the criteria for granting permission to occupy and use a road set forth in attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, the communications line should be installed at a height of 4.5 meters above the ground. At the time of the accident in this case, the electric wires increase and the height is lower than that of the above criteria, and the accident occurred while coming on the upper part of the plaintiff's vehicle that is merely 3.89 meters above the above criteria, and the accident in this case occurred due to the defect in the management of the defendant's communications line, and therefore

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has made a claim first to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proof of proof

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Therefore, the Defendant must prove that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence in the operation of the Plaintiff vehicle.

In this case, the front line of this case is installed in a news report, and even according to the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, 3 meters above the ground.