beta
Text
1. In relation to the accident described in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant does not exist.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manages and operates a skiing ground (hereinafter “ski ground of this case”) located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Pyeongtaek-do, Pyeongtaek-si, 174 (hereinafter “Ski ground of this case”). The Defendant is a person who used the skiing ground of this case on January 1, 2016.
B. On January 2, 2016, at around 21:18, the Defendant was diagnosed by the following: (a) around 21:18, the Defendant was at the emergency room of the Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Geeekne University (hereinafter “instant injury”); (b) complained of the right-free knee’s identification; and (c) was diagnosed at the above hospital that the Defendant suffered injury, such as k
In other words, on January 4, 2016, the defendant was admitted to the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Hospital, and was discharged after being hospitalized to the above hospital by the 12th day of the same month.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 8 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant suffered the injury of this case due to the accident listed in the attached Form (hereinafter "the accident of this case"), and that there is no liability for damages against the defendant.
As to this, the defendant alleged that the defendant suffered the injury of this case due to the accident of this case, and thus the plaintiff is obligated to compensate the defendant for the damage.
3. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts that the legal relationship
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998; 2007Da67772, May 31, 2007). In contrast, even according to the Defendant’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for damages is premised on the occurrence of the instant accident, and the actual occurrence of the accident occurs to the Defendant.