2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a guarantee insurance company dealing with franchise business, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married at the time of concluding a guarantee insurance contract as seen below, and they were divorced thereafter.

B. On April 30, 2012, A entered into a franchise business guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff on April 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant contract”). Upon entering into the said contract, A signed a franchise business guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”). At the time of entering into the said contract with the Defendant’s authorized certificate, A signed a digital signature with each Defendant on KRW 7,00,000,000 as a joint and several surety.

C. Since then, an insurance accident occurred while A was in operation of the franchise store business, and the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 71,000,000 in total with KRW 64,000,000 on December 8, 2015 for A.

At the time of digital signature agreement stating that “When the defendant has paid the insurance money, the principal and the guarantor shall immediately pay the payment insurance premium, but shall pay damages for delay in accordance with the interest rate applicable to delay damages publicly notified by the defendant from the day following the payment date of the insurance money.” The interest rate publicly announced by the defendant when the defendant pays the insurance money is 15% per annum.

On the other hand, A goes beyond authority.

On August 18, 2015, Jeju District Court issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 as Jeju District Court Decision 201Da52666 on August 18, 2015, and the above summary order became final and conclusive.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that A and the defendant sought reimbursement of the indemnity amount of KRW 71,00,000 according to subrogation and damages for delay, and that the defendant did not bear the liability for indemnity on the ground that the defendant had not jointly and severally guaranteed the contract of this case, and therefore the plaintiff did not bear the liability for indemnity.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Framework Act on Electronic Commerce applies.