1. In relation to the traffic accident stated in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff’s liability to pay damages against the Defendant exists.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 14:20 on August 20, 2016, the Plaintiff driven a E-Poter (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) in the vicinity of the shooting distance from the D Pharmacy located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and continued the said one-lane to temporarily stop at the private-distance intersection, and subsequently proceed again at the private-distance intersection, the Plaintiff made a bypass from the front side of the D-dong apartment located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

B. Meanwhile, while the Defendant driving a F-wheeled vehicle on the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the F-wheeled vehicle at the above time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle temporarily stops and temporarily stops the F-wheeled vehicle while driving at the above distance intersection, and was driving again, the Defendant suffered the injury of two weeks per cent of the whole value of the F-wheeled vehicle, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] A] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, and inquiry results with respect to the Ulsan East Police Station of this Court, the purport of this case before oral pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is merely that the accident in this case occurred due to the defendant's failure to drive, and that there was no contact between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's two-wheeled vehicle and the defendant's failure to obstruct the defendant's passage, and thus, there was no liability for damages, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle was rapidly neglected to prevent the accident by making the plaintiff's vehicle's right-pass at the accident site in this case

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 debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the requirement of

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). In light of the following, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s negligence in the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Rather, in light of the aforementioned evidence, it is acknowledged as follows.