[1] The criteria for determining insurance accidents in performance guarantee insurance

[2] The case holding that, in a performance guarantee insurance contract for the obligation to return the lease deposit, which set the insurance period as the same as the lease period under the main contract, where the lease contract, which is the main contract, has been terminated for reasons such as the expiration of the lease period or the early termination, and the lessor failed to fulfill the obligation to return the lease deposit, the insurance accident has already occurred regardless of whether the lessee intended to order the object of the lease or provided the performance, and that the lessor does not have an insurance accident only if the lessor

[1] Articles 65 and 66 subparagraph 2 of the Commercial Act; Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 665 and 666 subparagraph 2 of the Commercial Act; Article 105 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da19666 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 711), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da55199 delivered on January 24, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 717), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16976 Delivered on April 28, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 908)

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sam Young, Attorneys Kim Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (Attorney private Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Choi Jin-seok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na66826 decided April 6, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants, including the part arising from supplementary participation.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The term "accident" refers to an uncertain accident that specifies the insurer's obligation to pay the insurance proceeds under an insurance contract. As such, in the performance guarantee insurance, what is the insurance risks in detail must be determined by taking into account the following: (a) the insurance clauses included in the content of the insurance contract and the details of the insurance policies and principal contracts cited in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da1966, Feb. 13, 1998; 2004Da16976, Apr. 28, 2006, etc.).

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the joint defendant corporation (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") of the court below entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter "the lease agreement of this case") with the supplementary intervenor around January 1997 on the building of this case, which is owned by the defendant company, with the term of 1.4 billion won, and the term of 1.4 billion won from January 18, 1997 to January 17, 1999, with the term of 1.4 billion won, and the term of 1.4 billion won, and with the term of 1999. The plaintiff's general terms and conditions of the contract of this case, which constitute the terms and conditions of the contract of this case, set the insurance period as the supplementary intervenor, and set the term of the contract of this case as the same as the term of lease under the lease agreement of this case. Article 1 of the plaintiff's general terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case, "the plaintiff, the debtor of this case, has not fulfilled its obligation stipulated in the contract of this case (the insurance period of this case terminated lawfully in accordance with the terms and conditions)."

If a lease contract is terminated, the duty to return the leased object and the duty to return the lessor’s lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, unless the lessee returns the leased object or fails to provide it, the lessor is not liable for delay in performing the duty to return the lease deposit. However, the guarantee insurance substantially holds the nature of the guarantee (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da40821, Feb. 11, 2003). It is only stipulated that the insured is compensated for losses due to the policyholder’s failure to perform the obligation due to the due date within the insurance period. The insurance contract of this case is not for securing the obligation to return the lease deposit under the instant lease contract, but for securing damages due to delay in performance. In particular, in light of the fact that the period of the lease contract of this case and the insurance contract of this case are accurately consistent with the insurance period of the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the leased deposit within the insurance period of 20 days, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is liable for delay in performance due to the expiration of the insurance period of the contract of this case.

2. In accordance with the above legal principles and the above factual relations, if the defendant company did not refund the security deposit even though the contract of this case was lawfully terminated on August 25, 1998, the insurance accident that the plaintiff agreed to take over in the insurance contract of this case shall be deemed to have already occurred. The plaintiff, who is the insurer, shall not be exempted from liability for the payment of insurance proceeds on the ground that the insurance accident did not occur within the insurance period. Even if the order for the construction of the building of this case was made after the expiration of the actual insurance period, the insurance accident cannot be deemed to have occurred only after the expiration of the insurance period

The judgment of the court below which has the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation of performance guarantee insurance and standardized contract.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)