208Gahap10177 Deposit for lease

The actual contents of the corporation

Law Firm Fae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-tae, Counsel for the defendant

1. A (56years, Residuals);

2. Al stock company;

Attorney Choi Byung-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

February 25, 2009 (Defendant 2)

Unclaimedd Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1)

March 4, 2009

1. Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from May 25, 2007 to June 9, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against defendant A1 guarantee company is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A1 Guarantee Company, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

the purport of the Gu

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay the amount stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

원고는, 소외 B가 2006.1.20. 피고 A와 사이에 진해시 소재 ■■병원의 지하 장례식장 및 매점 795.3m(이하 '이 사건 건물 부분'이라고 한다)를 임대차보증금 5억 원, 임대차기간 2006. 1. 25.부터 2008. 1. 24.까지로 정하여 임차하기로 하는 임대차계약을 체결하였고, 원고는 2006. 1. 26. B에게 금 4억 2,000만 원을 대출하면서 위 피고의 동의 하에 B로부터 위 임대차보증금반환채권을 양수받았는데, 당시 원고와 위 피고 및 B는 임대차계약 종료전이라도 B가 위 대출금 이자 지급의 연체 등으로 기한의 이익을 상실하는 경우 위 임대차계약을 해지할 수 있는 것으로 약정하였고 B가 2007. 4. 26.부터 위 대출금 이자의 지급을 연체함으로써 기한의 이익을 상실하여 원고가 위 임대차계약 해지의 의사표시를 하였으므로 원고는 위 임대차보증금과 위 임대차계약 해지후인 2007. 5. 25.부터의 지연손해금의 지급을 구한다고 주장하는바, 위 피고는 민사소송법 제257조 제1항에 의하여 이를 자백한 것으로 볼 것이다. 따라서, 위 피고는 원고에게 임대차보증금 5억 원 및 이에 대하여 2007. 5. 25.부터 이 사건 소장 부본 송달일인 2008. 6. 9.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 20%의 각 비율에 의한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A1 Guarantee Company

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On January 20, 2006, B prepared a lease agreement between Defendant A and the content that the instant building part is to be leased by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 500 million, the lease term from January 25, 2006 to January 24, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On January 25, 2006, Defendant A1 Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A1”) guaranteed the return of KRW 500 million of the lease guarantee amount to Defendant A during the insurance period from January 25, 2006 to January 24, 2008. In the event of an insured incident, the Defendant Company entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant performance guarantee insurance contract”) with the pledgee designated as the beneficiary of the insurance money (mutual change from 00 Savings Bank on October 29, 2007) to pay the insurance money directly to the pledgee of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant performance guarantee insurance contract”).

(3) On January 26, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case from Defendant A with the consent of Defendant A, and provided the performance guarantee insurance policy under the performance guarantee insurance contract of this case to B, and thereafter loaned KRW 420 million to B. B delayed payment of the above loan interest from April 26, 2007, and the Defendant A was also subject to the suspension of current account transaction on June 22, 2007, and the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of the insurance money to the Defendant Company around December 13, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

B. Determination on the claim for insurance proceeds

(1) Determination of the parties’ assertion

(A) Contents of the assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not pay interest on the above loan, and that the insurance accident occurred, such as the suspension of current account transaction, etc., the defendant A sought the payment of KRW 500 million of the lease deposit with the insurance money under the performance guarantee insurance contract of this case. The defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case between B and the defendant A is null and void because it is a false lease contract which was concluded by mutual agreement with the purpose of receiving the lease deposit

(B) Determination

그러므로 살피건대, 앞서 든 증거 및 증인 C의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 건물 부분은 소외 C가 2004. 8. 15. 임대차기간을 3년으로 정하여 임차한 후 2007.3.경 ■■병원이 부도날 때까지 점유·사용한 사실, 피고 A는 위■■병원의 병원장이고, B는 행정원장으로 함께 위 병원을 운영하여 왔는데 피고 A와 B는 통모하여 원고로부터 대출을 받기 위하여 허위로 이 사건 임대차계약서를 작성한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 갑 제5호증의 2, 을 제3호증의 1의 각 기재만으로 위 인정을 뒤집기 부족하고 달리 반증이 없으므로, 피고 A와 B 사이의 이 사건 임대차계약은 통정허위표시에 의한 계약으로 무효라고 할 것이고, 보증보험이란 피보험자와 어떠한 법률관계를 가진 보험계약자 (주계약상의 채무자)의 채무불이행으로 인하여 피보험자(주계약상의 채 권자)가 입게 될 손해의 전보를 보험자가 인수하는 것을 내용으로 하는 손해보험으로서, 형식적으로는 채무자의 채무불이행을 보험사고로 하는 보험계약이나 실질적으로는 보증의 성격을 가지고 보증계약과 같은 효과를 목적으로 하는 것이므로, 보증보험계약은 주계약 등의 법률관계를 전제로 하고 보험계약자가 주계약에 따른 채무를 이행하지 아니함으로써 피보험자가 입게 되는 손해를 약관의 정하는 바에 따라 그리고 그 보험계약금액의 범위 내에서 보상하는 것이고, 그 성질에 반하지 않는 한 민법의 보증에 관한 규정이 보증보험계약에도 적용된다고 할 것이므로(대법원 2004. 12. 24. 선고 2004다20265 판결 등 참조) 이 사건 이행보증보험계약은 주계약인 이 사건 임대차계약이 무효인 이상 보증채무의 부종성 법리에 따라 무효로 되었다고 할 것이다.

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the right to return the lease deposit of this case from B, and was established a pledge on the right to claim the insurance claim under the performance guarantee insurance contract of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that not only B, the obligor of the instant lease contract, but also the Defendant Company, as a bona fide third party, who actually has a new legal interest based on the legal relationship formed outside the form by false representation, could not oppose the Plaintiff due to the above invalidation

Therefore, the Plaintiff is a third party to whom the right to claim the return of the instant lease deposit and the right to claim the insurance money under the instant performance guarantee contract was acquired (the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the return of the lease deposit and received the statement that the Plaintiff would directly pay the insurance money to the Plaintiff if the insured event occurred according to the method of establishing the right of pledge while taking over the right to claim the return of the lease deposit. Therefore, the instant insurance claim is also transferred along with the instant insurance contract. Supreme Court Decision 98Da53707 Decided June 8, 199) Even if the Plaintiff is bona fide, if the instant performance guarantee contract becomes null and void due to reasons other than false representation (this case’s performance guarantee insurance contract is not deemed null and void as a false representation). Since it cannot be deemed that the pertinent performance guarantee insurance contract was required in ordinary insurance or good faith at the time of the instant performance guarantee contract, the provisions of the Commercial Act regarding the above performance guarantee insurance contract cannot be deemed null and void as being contrary to the nature of the insurance contract’s performance guarantee insurance contract’s 94.

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company was liable for damages equivalent to the insurance money in accordance with tort liability, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant Company knew that the instant lease agreement was null and void as a fraudulent act at the time of entering into the instant performance guarantee insurance contract; (b) was issued the performance guarantee insurance policy of this case without delay despite being able to have known that it was null and void; and (c) as a result, the Plaintiff believed the surety insurance policy offered as security and caused loss of security interest equivalent to the insurance money;

(2) Determination

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness D alone is invalid because the defendant company knew or could have known that the lease contract of this case was invalid as a fraudulent act, and there is a negligence that failed to verify it properly, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is justified, and the claim against the defendant company is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judges Lee Jong-tae

Judges Kim Gin-sik