1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) in the judgment of the court of first instance, “(5),” “(5),” “(3), from May 20, 2012,” “from May 20, 2012,” and “2,038,085,040 won” of “2,07,941,040 won” of “2,307, 941,040 won” are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this part shall be cited.

2. The parties' assertion;

A. During the insurance period of the instant guarantee insurance contract by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion, the instant insurance accident occurred because the Defendant did not perform the obligation stipulated in the instant guarantee insurance contract (the third year loan payment). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s Intervenor the total amount of the insurance money stipulated in the instant guarantee insurance contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of indemnity equivalent to the above insurance money and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (Grounds for Appeal) 1) that the Defendant did not pay the rent for the third year, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have failed to implement the principal contract under the Guarantee Insurance Contract. Ultimately, the Plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity against the Defendant, since the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds for the unexpected insured event. 2) The principal contract of the Guarantee Insurance Contract is deemed to be the instant renewal contract. At the time of the occurrence of the insured event alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant renewal contract was already terminated at the expiration of the period, and the third year loan agreement was not yet concluded.

Therefore, since there is no main contract to guarantee the guaranteed insurance contract of this case, there is no room for the occurrence of the insurance accident.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim (1) that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor the third year loan fee to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is an insured incident under the Guarantee Insurance Contract.