1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor entered into a contract to supply a new product to the Plaintiff on or around June 12, 2013 (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff concluded a guarantee insurance contract on June 14, 2013 (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”) and did not provide the Plaintiff with the device despite receiving advance payment from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant guarantee insurance contract is deemed to be “instant guarantee insurance contract.”

As the insured events prescribed in the Guarantee Insurance Contract occurred, the Defendant, the insurer, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the insurance proceeds of KRW 114,789,680 under the instant Guarantee Insurance Contract and damages for delay thereof. Defendant (2) The substance of the instant supply contract entered into by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, is the agreement on the lending of the purchase of the device.

However, the Defendant’s Intervenor concealed the same fact, deceiving the Defendant, and concluded the instant guarantee insurance contract, and around October 10, 2016, notified the Defendant that the instant guarantee insurance contract was revoked in accordance with Article 110 of the Civil Act. As such, the instant guarantee insurance contract was lawfully revoked.

② The instant contract for the supply of a device is null and void because it is intended to lend funds to purchase a device without supply of a device, and thus constitutes false representation in collusion. The instant guarantee insurance contract, which is a subordinate contract that guarantees the implementation of a main contract, is null and void depending on the subsidiary nature.

③ As long as the instant supply contract is a lending agreement, the instant guarantee insurance contract is null and void pursuant to Article 644 of the Commercial Act, as it is impossible to occur from the time of conclusion of the contract.

④ The Defendant made an error in the terms of the instant supply contract to effect the instant guarantee insurance contract.