선수금 등 청구의 소
1. The judgment of the first instance court is modified according to the expansion of the purport of the claim in the plaintiff's trial as follows.
The defendant.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as follows: ① The statement in the column of "1. Basic Facts" for the reasons of the judgment of the first instance court.
Part of paragraph (No. 4, No. 7 through No. 13) and 1
E. Paragraph 3 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the corresponding part, inasmuch as the part of Paragraph 3 (5) (2) (2) (2) (12) (3) (3) (3) (3) is applied as follows, and the corresponding part is the same as the corresponding part, except that the “12-14” in No. 5 is applied as “written evidence” (12-14).
D. On September 24, 2009, the Export-Import Bank entered into an export guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff in relation to the issuance of each of the above guarantees (hereinafter “instant export guarantee contract”), and accordingly, the Plaintiff issued an export guarantee insurance contract with the Export-Import Bank as a policyholder. This is a content that the Export-Import Bank, the policyholder of the Export-Import Bank, claims for the performance of the guaranteed obligation from the private loan bank, the other party to the guarantee, and then compensates the Plaintiff for the loss incurred by the Export-Import Bank by performing the guaranteed obligation.
In addition, the main text of Article 33(1) of the Export Guarantee Insurance Clause (Subrogation by Insurer), which forms the contents of the export guarantee insurance contract of this case, provides that "When the Corporation (Plaintiff) has paid insurance proceeds, it may acquire part of the amount of insurance claims related to the insurance accidents held by the policyholder at the time of paying the insurance proceeds."
After the completion of the 3 Libybya, HIB sent an official document stating that it would cause approval by submitting a business plan and a financial plan related to the construction of this case to the sale of the Gu treatment Motor Vehicles from November 30, 2011.
On July 14, 2012, HIB did not reply to this issue without resumption of the construction of the instant case, and HIB was a breach of the contract of the former Treatment Automobile Sales.