본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단513420

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant D Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs KRW 20,000,00 and interest thereon from June 18, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 29, 2014, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) entered into an entrustment agency contract with Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) on behalf of proxy for the business of Defendant D, such as joining goods and services. Around February 6, 2014, in order to secure the obligation to be borne by Defendant D, an insurance contract for performance guarantee with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) was entered into with an insurance contract for performance guarantee with KRW 220,000,000, the obligor D, and Defendant D, to secure the obligation to be borne by Defendant D.

B. On the other hand, around February 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Defendant D and the Plaintiffs to pay 3% of the company’s profits within the limit of KRW 10 million with joint and several sureties’s debt, and accordingly, Defendant D entered into a contract for joint and several sureties’s debt to be borne by the Seoul Guarantee Insurance and performance guarantee insurance upon occurrence of the insurance accident under the Seoul Guarantee Insurance and the performance guarantee insurance contract.

C. As Defendant D’s long-term arrears of the obligation such as the price of a device, Defendant D terminated the consignment agency contract around April 2016, and on April 12, 2016, Defendant D claimed insurance money under the performance guarantee insurance contract with Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and received KRW 166,201,99 on May 25, 2016.

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. notified the plaintiffs of the payment of insurance proceeds on May 2016, and requested the payment of joint and several surety obligations accordingly.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 5 evidence, Eul 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they were Defendant D representative director, jointly and severally guaranteed their obligations to Defendant D’s case by deception, and failed to hear sufficient explanation at the time of concluding the joint and several liability agreement with Defendant D, Defendant D’s debt arrears was not notified from Defendant D, and Defendant D’s joint and several liability termination was requested to Defendant D, but Defendant D did not replace Defendant D’s joint and several liability.