Attached Form

In relation to the traffic accident stated in the list, there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay damages to the defendants.

1. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 1 through 2, evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and images Nos. 6 and 7, it is recognized that Defendant E was on board the said vehicle at the time, while the Plaintiff was driving a F vehicle on Nov. 17, 2019 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on the front part of the G vehicle driven by Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant”) with the front part while driving the vehicle on Nov. 17, 2019 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, the instant accident is a minor accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in contact with Defendant D even if it was in contact, and thus, even if the Defendant’s vehicle was damaged or the Defendants did not differ, the Defendants sought compensation, such as medical expenses, etc., against the Plaintiff, and sought confirmation of the absence of the obligation.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of an obligation is groundless, since the Defendants inflicted an injury on the Gyeong-doe’s salt and tension due to the instant accident.

3. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination, the Plaintiff committed an error of shocking the Defendant’s vehicle by violating the duty of safety driving, and such error was the cause of the instant accident.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the Defendants, if any.

However, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims first and denied the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the claim, the defendant is liable to assert and prove the facts constituting the requisite of the legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). In light of the above legal principles, the health care unit and the evidence submitted by the defendants alone are sufficient to deem that the defendants

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Rather, according to the images of Gap's evidence No. 1, the accident of this case is done.