logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.20 2018가단26664
보험금 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff, within the Plaintiff’s factory located in Chungcheongnam-gun Ethical Group, contracted the construction work of manufacturing and installing heat resistant decomposition facilities to C on the following terms:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). The construction amount: 1,50,000,000 won (Additional Tax No. 2): 30% of the down payment, 20% of the first intermediate payment, 30% of the second intermediate payment (after completion of construction and operation), 20% of the remainder (after completion of construction and operation), 3(3) of the contract clause and Article 3(3) of the contract clause(20% of the remainder (after completion of construction and operation) “B” (Co., Ltd.) must submit to “A” (Plaintiff) the performance guarantee insurance policy and the advance payment equivalent to 10% of the contract amount at the time of receipt of the down payment or advance payment. (b) On November 29, 2016, C Co., Ltd. subscribed to the Defendant with respect to the instant contract and provided the Defendant with the guaranteed insurance policy (hereinafter “instant advance payment”).

(C) The Plaintiff paid KRW 60,00,000, which was part of the down payment to C on November 30, 2016, and KRW 63,000,000,000, which was the sum of KRW 3,000,000 on December 16, 2016. D. The Plaintiff claimed insurance payment under the instant advance payment guarantee insurance contract to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not have an insured event on January 18, 2018, but refused the payment of the said insurance money. Thereafter, the Plaintiff Company C commenced rehabilitation proceedings with the Ulsan District Court 2018,501, which was concluded on March 27, 2018, and was appointed as the administrator of the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “A”) as the Intervenor Company.

(iii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the intervenor company formed a rasia 18th class map to the plaintiff.

arrow