1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant regarding the incident indicated in the attached Form does not exist.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 through 9 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-9, the fact that an accident listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant accident”) has occurred may be recognized.

The plaintiff sought confirmation that there is no liability for damages against the defendant related to the accident of this case, and the defendant claimed that the defendant suffered damages such as automobile repair cost of KRW 5,709,050, business suspension damage of KRW 6,750,000, etc., and that the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

On the other hand, 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, who is the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and supporting the facts of the requirements for legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). The defendant did not prove that the damage alleged by the defendant was caused by

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation that there is no liability for damages against the defendant due to the accident of this case is justified.