A. On July 6, 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract for fidelity guarantee with the Plaintiff and the insured, the third credit information company (hereinafter “non-party company”), the Defendant, the surety, the insurance amount of KRW 30,000,000, and the insurance period from July 6, 2012 to July 5, 2013. On July 7, 2013, the non-party company concluded a contract for fidelity guarantee with the Plaintiff and the insured, the Defendant, the respondent, the insured, the insurance amount of KRW 30,00,000, the insurance amount of KRW 30,000,000, and the insurance period from July 6, 2013 to July 5, 2014.

B. On March 2014, A filed a complaint with the Daejeon Daejeon Police Station for embezzlement of KRW 52,553,400, etc. A’s collection and reimbursement amount to KRW 52,53,400. On July 28, 2014, A was prosecuted on the part of occupational embezzlement (Sasan Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2014 Highest 693).

C. Around August 2014, the non-party company asserted that the Defendant embezzled the debt collection payment of the non-party company from July 20, 2012 to November 18, 2013, and claimed insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000, based on the first insurance contract on September 12, 2014, and KRW 8,122,50, based on the second insurance contract on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), a significant fact to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,122,500 for indemnity and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from September 13, 2014 to November 18, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, from September 13, 2014, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that he paid a large portion of the amount of reimbursement claimed by the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to support the fact that he paid a large portion of the amount of reimbursement, as well as the specific time and time. Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.