beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's respective lawsuits against the defendant New Year's Republic of Korea and the defendant Aves Republic of Korea shall be dismissed.
2. B Vehicles B:
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, as the insurer of the vehicle B, does not have the obligation to pay damages in excess of KRW 1,072,50 with respect to the accident described in paragraph (2) of the above Article, and sought confirmation that there is no obligation to pay damages in respect of the Defendant Arenck as to the Defendant Arenck as the insurer of the vehicle B.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate the danger, in danger, and in danger, in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.
In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit seeking confirmation has concerns over causing anxietys in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and again, he/she shall be a person who has asserted conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff and, if so, has the benefit of confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). In light of the above legal principles, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the foregoing, the above defendants are merely merely those who have entered into a lending contract during the repair period of the damaged vehicle that is not the victim of the above accident, and received the claim for payment
or otherwise entitled to claim the payment of insurance proceeds against the plaintiff
Recognizing that there is a position to claim the existence of other claims or to claim the existence of the same, each of the entries in Gap 2 and Eul 3 is insufficient. Since there is no other evidence, the Plaintiff’s judgment against the said Defendants cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means, and the said Defendants may be deemed as a person who asserts the benefit inconsistent with the legal relationship sought confirmation of absence.