beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.02 2017가단5175274

보험금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① In relation to the lease business for the stabilization of the housing of low-income groups, the Plaintiff entered into and renewed an agreement on the management of credit insurance for rental housing every year with respect to the entire lease contract that the Plaintiff handled with the Defendant to compensate for damages caused by nonperformance of the obligation to return the lease deposit.

② Meanwhile, in order to compensate for losses suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s employees, etc., the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the guarantee of identity (hereinafter “instant guarantee”) with the Plaintiff, the principal director, including the Plaintiff, the principal director, and the insurance period from March 1, 2012. Article 1 of the Special Terms and Conditions I of the instant guarantee of identity (hereinafter “Special Terms and Conditions”) stipulates that the principal guarantor shall directly compensate for the Plaintiff’s property damage due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her responsibilities as a decent manager in handling the Plaintiff’s business.

③ On July 24, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the owner D on a deposit basis for 70 million won, E, and period from August 5, 2008 (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”), and paid 66.5 million won for the lease of this case as a deposit. On August 25, 2011, when the lease agreement of this case was initially renewed, D sold the house of this case to F, the registration of establishment of lease under the name of E was cancelled, and on August 26, 2011, E lost opposing power against the said deposit of this case because E transferred to another domicile without notifying the Plaintiff, and D, etc. failed to recover the lease of this case.

④ According to the Plaintiff’s guidelines for performing the duties of lease on a deposit basis, the Plaintiff’s confirmation of the eligibility requirements and opposing power of the tenant at the time of a lease on a deposit basis.