On December 5, 2019, G vehicle owned by the plaintiff and H-wheeled vehicle driven by the defendant in the vicinity of Yangsan-si on December 5, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of G-motor vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”), and the Defendant is the driver of H-wheeled Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-motor vehicle”).

B. On December 5, 2019, at around 15:54, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in front of the crosswalk, without any signal apparatus near the F in Yangsan-si, and the Defendant’s vehicle following the stop was concealed on the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the traffic accident of this case occurred entirely by the defendant's negligence, and thus, the defendant does not bear the liability for damages against the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's driver was at fault before the crosswalk.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, specified the first claim in order to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proof of proof as to the fact that the legal relationship exists. Therefore, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proof of proof as to the occurrence of the damage claim to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17821 Decided July 26, 2002, etc.). According to the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, since the traffic accident location of this case is installed with a crosswalk without signal apparatus, the driver has a duty of care to proceed after checking whether the driver has a pedestrian by temporarily stopping or driving a vehicle at the same time, and by checking whether there is a pedestrian with the front left, the driver has a duty of care to proceed. Thus, the defendant could have sufficiently anticipated that the vehicle of this case can stop in front of the crosswalk. Nevertheless, the defendant's vehicle without securing a sufficient safety distance with the plaintiff's vehicle.