beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,591,780 and KRW 30,000 among them, from June 4, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant, the policyholder, the insured construction company, the insurance amount of KRW 30,000,000.
B. At the time of concluding the above guarantee (credit) insurance contract, the Defendant agreed to pay the insurance money to the Plaintiff immediately when the Plaintiff pays the insurance money to the insured by failing to perform the contract with the insured, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the insurance money by adding the delay damages and the fixed delay damages
C. Since then, on March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 as insurance money to Hain Construction Co., Ltd., the insured on March 5, 2014.
The interest rate applicable to delay damages publicly notified by the Plaintiff is 6% per annum from the date following the date of payment of insurance proceeds to 30 days, 9% per annum from the following day to 90 days, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and as of August 5, 2015, the interest rate applicable to delay damages for the confirmation of insurance proceeds under the guarantee insurance contract in this case
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Article 3(2) of the Digital Signature Act provides that “where a certified digital signature exists, the relevant digital signature shall be signed, sealed, or sealed by the Signatory, and its content shall be presumed not to have been altered after the digital signature is affixed.” Article 18-2 of the same Act provides that “Where other Acts restrict or exclude the verification of the person himself/herself using an authorized certificate, he/she may verify his/her identity by means of an authorized certificate issued by a licensed certification authority pursuant to the provisions of this Act.” Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “private document shall be presumed to have been authentic when it is signed, sealed, or stamped by the principal or his/her agent.
According to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant's insurance contract of this case.