logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2016나10246
구상금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가. 2013. 3. 20. 원, 피고 사이에, 보험계약자 피고, 피보험자 에스케이(SK)네트웍스 주식회사(이하, ‘소외 회사’라고 한다), 보험가입금액 5,583,000원, 보험기간 2013. 4. 9.부터 2016. 4. 8.까지로 정하여 원고가 피고와 소외 회사 사이의 자동차(SM5) 대여계약에 따른 임차료 및 위약배상금을 지급보증한다는 내용의 보증보험계약이 피고 명의의 공인인증서를 이용한 전자서명을 거친 전자문서로 체결되었다.

B. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff received notice of the occurrence of an insured incident from a non-party company and paid KRW 5,583,000 on April 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the guarantee insurance contract of this case was effective in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, including the Digital Signature Act, and thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 5,583,000 won for indemnity to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the guarantee insurance contract of this case is not effective to the defendant since B entered into the guarantee insurance contract by stealing the name of the defendant.

B. Determination under Article 3(2) of the Digital Signature Act provides that "where a certified digital signature exists, the relevant digital signature shall be deemed to have been signed, sealed, or sealed by the Signatory, and its contents 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 by 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 bears the signature, seal, or seal of the principal

arrow