구상금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a non-life insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the EsP marketing company (hereinafter “SP marketing company”) with the following content.
- Policyholders and the Insured: The insurance period from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014 - the purchase amount of insurance: KRW 40 million - the purchase security of the non-party company: the Defendant, who guaranteed the financial losses of the non-party company caused by the illegal occupation or fraudulent act of the mail order store, runs the wholesale and retail business of the mobile phone terminal in the name of "B", and on January 3, 2012, entered into an entrustment contract with the non-party company and sold the mobile phone terminal after receiving the mobile phone terminal from the non-party company.
On November 27, 2013, the defendant received from the non-party company and received a report on the identity theft of the mobile phone device, and on August 25, 2014, it was determined that the opening of the above device was caused by the identity theft, and on September 2014, the KS Telecom paid the amount of the fee to be paid to the plaintiff by subtracting KRW 412,650 from the amount of the fee to be paid to the plaintiff.
In addition, on February 6, 2014, the non-party company conducted a inventory inspection to an agency operated by the defendant, and confirmed that there is no total amount of 2,864,400 won.
On August 1, 2014, the non-party company sent to the defendant a certificate of content that claims the payment of the outstanding amount of settlement and the outstanding amount of the above terminal amount of KRW 2,864,400, total amount of KRW 3,959,855, and the above certificate of content reached the defendant.
On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 3,277,050 (=2,864,400 of the mobile device price) to the non-party company as damages suffered by the non-party company due to the embezzlement of the Defendant’s terminal and the theft of name (=2,864,400 of the mobile device price).
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Fact-finding finding and fact-finding with respect to the non-party company in the trial.