2013and 5564 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

Dong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

A

October 18, 2013

November 15, 2013

1. It is confirmed that there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay damages to the Defendant based on the motor vehicle insurance contract listed in the separate sheet with respect to an accident that occurred around January 20, 2012 by the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B, while driving a motor vehicle that entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with the Plaintiff on January 20, 2012 and changing the line for the right-hand transfer, the motor vehicle was driven in the vicinity of the Ulsan-do Roof-dong Round for the right-hand transfer of the motor vehicle, and the motor vehicle was shocked in front of the left-hand edge of the motor vehicle of the Defendant driving, which is proceeding on the right-hand side of the motor vehicle.

B. From January 21, 2012 to January 28, 2012 after the above accident, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 797,690 to the Defendant in addition to the Plaintiff’s direct payment of hospital treatment costs of KRW 1,050,00 to the hospital side, and to waive all rights related to the above accident in the future.

C. On June 2012, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay additional damages, as the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as vertebrate verte, etc. due to the above accident.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-1-3, and Eul evidence 1, the fact inquiry results of this court's E Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The defendant asserts that the above accident suffered bodily harm, etc. caused by the plerehion of 10, 11 plehion, pressure gale of spine, etc., which was not revealed at the time of the above agreement, and that the plaintiff is liable for compensation for the defendant's damage, since the symptoms that were not revealed at the time of the above agreement do not have the effect of agreement.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the above injury alleged by the defendant is not caused by the above accident, but caused by the defendant's death before the accident, so the plaintiff is not responsible for compensating for the damages caused by the accident.

B. Determination

According to the statement No. 1-1 to 8 of the evidence No. 1-8 of this Court, and the fact-finding results with respect to the F Hospital of this Court, the defendant can be found to have shown symptoms such as radiation emitting from June 2012 to both sides due to spin-in febrates and chromosomes, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge whether it was caused by the above accident.

Rather, the evidence No. 3 of this Court, and the result of the fact-finding conducted on the East University Hospital of this Court, based on the fact-finding conducted on the G Hospital of this Court, H Jeongwon, I, and Ulsan National University Hospital of the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the fact-finding conducted on each of the above fact-finding conducted on the G Hospital of this Court. In full view of the whole purport of the arguments, the defendant suffered from congenital congenital dystynasty inverte inverte due to congenital dysium formation from before the accident, and from the congenital dystynasty of the 9 chest, the defendant was treated from around June 2003, and received treatment from the Ulsan National University Hospital of this Court on May 2009. According to this, the fact that the defendant suffered from congenital dystynasty from the disease before and after the accident is found to have not shown any difference on the part of the defendant's assertion.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the damages to the defendant in addition to the damages paid in the above agreement process, and the defendant seeks additional damages, and the plaintiff is also entitled to seek confirmation. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

For judge Nam-chul

A person shall be appointed.