구상금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, with respect to KRW 4,823,725 to the Plaintiff and KRW 2,823,725 to the Plaintiff, as to the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance, July 18, 2014.
1. Basic facts
A. In order to guarantee the payment of overdue wages to foreign workers who obtained employment permit, the Defendant entered into a guarantee insurance contract for authorization and permission with the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers as stated in Table 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
In Table 1, the insurance coverage amount of the securities number C 2,00,000,000 insurance coverage amount of 13.4.27.27.26.26.26.200 to 2012.9.14.23 E 2,000,000 to 36.27.26. 2014. [However, damages for delay shall be calculated by multiplying the insurance amount to be paid by 6% per annum from the day following the payment date of the insurance amount to 365 days before the full payment date, by the annual interest rate of 9% per annum from the next day to 60 days, by the annual interest rate of 15.3% per annum from the next day to December 31, 2015; and 15% per annum from the next day to the next day to 15.20% per annum from the next day to the next day of December 31, 2015].
B. Around July 17, 2014, the Defendant did not pay wages or retirement allowances to foreign workers; the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,00,000,00 as insurance money for the provisions of paragraph (3) around February 26, 2015, with respect to paragraph (1) Nos. 1,58,437, and 1,235,288, and paragraph (2).
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned is seeking the amount claimed as the amount of reimbursement under the insurance contract of this case or based on the right of subrogation.
According to the rehabilitation plan authorized by the Defendant, the Defendant shall repay the undetermined indemnity claim according to the method of satisfaction of the rehabilitation claim after the occurrence of substitute payment. However, the Plaintiff’s indemnity claim was omitted in the report on the claim, or was not reported as a public-interest claim, and there was no demand for distribution even during the process of factory auction.