In cases where the period of insurance exceeds the insurance period before the due date of performance of the principal obligation insurance contract for performance guarantee, whether the delay in performance of the principal obligation becomes a ground for the payment of insurance proceeds (negative)

Since a performance guarantee insurance contract provides that the insured shall compensate for losses incurred by failure to perform his/her obligations within the insurance period as stipulated in the principal contract. Thus, the remainder of the insured, which extended the deadline for completion before the expiration of the contract and extended the deadline for completion under the principal contract, shall not be subject to the change of the insurance period as a matter of course, even if the insured and the policyholder have extended the deadline for completion under the principal contract, the insurance period under the principal contract between the insurance company and the policyholder shall not be subject to the change of the insurance period as a matter of course. Thus, as long as the extended deadline is obvious after the extended due date, even if the extended due date has not been implemented after the insurance period,

Article 5 (1) of the Insurance Business Act

Cheong and Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Kim Promotion et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na1421 delivered on June 18, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and supplemental appellate brief are also examined as supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief not timely filed.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's construction work was conducted on November 1, 1993 by taking account of the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court below. The non-party 1 company concluded the above construction work with the non-party 1 company and the non-party 4 company's construction work that was conducted on the ground of the non-party 1 company's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1 company's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1 company's non-party 9's non-party 1 company's non-party 4 company's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1 company's non-party 9's non-party 1 company's non-party 9's new construction work agreement.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and it is clear that the insurance contract of this case is an insurance contract that compensates for losses sustained by the insured due to failure to meet the obligation within the insurance period under the main contract. The judgment of the court below that the insurance contract of this case did not occur within the insurance period under the insurance contract of this case is just, and it cannot be accepted as the grounds for the payment of insurance proceeds under the insurance contract of this case, even if the extended insurance period was not implemented after the extended insurance period, even if the extended insurance period was not implemented after the extended insurance period, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence or in the interpretation of a legal act between the parties as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

According to the records, the plaintiff argued that the agreement to change the deadline for completion on the premise that the insurance accident occurred within the insurance period of this case and the plaintiff's insurance claim was suspended or exempted from condition precedent. However, as seen above, the plaintiff's assertion that the payment was deferred or exempted from condition precedent cannot be seen as having occurred as long as it did not have any further reason. Thus, the court below's decision that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the extension of the deadline for construction is deferred or conditional exemption is not conditional exemption is just in conclusion, and as long as the plaintiff's insurance claim is not established, the court below's decision to reject the plaintiff's assertion that the ground for exemption under the terms and conditions is against the good faith principle, the abuse of rights, or the purport of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as well as the plaintiff's argument that it is contrary to the purport of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)