1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the former part of B, and the defendant is a guarantee insurance company dealing with franchise insurance.

B. On April 30, 2012, B commenced the franchise store business of Co., Ltd., Ltd., and entered into a franchise business guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”). Upon entering into the said contract, B signed each Plaintiff’s signature on KRW 7,00,000, and KRW 64,000,000 by using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate as a joint and several surety.

At the time of digital signature agreement stating that “When the defendant has paid the insurance money, the principal and the guarantor shall immediately pay the insurance money, but shall pay damages for delay in accordance with the interest rate applicable to delay damages publicly notified by the defendant from the day after the date of payment of the insurance money.” The interest rate publicly announced by the

C. After that, B had been engaged in the above franchise store business, the insurance accident occurred while the Defendant paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 7,000,000 on December 8, 2015 for B.

On December 8, 2015, the Defendant, as of December 23, 2015, prepared a notice to the Defendant that the sum of the principal and damages for delay to be paid by the Plaintiff in connection with the instant contract is KRW 64,157,80,7,017,260, and sent it to the Plaintiff.

E. Meanwhile, B is without authority.

On August 18, 2015, Jeju District Court issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 as Jeju District Court Decision 201Da52666 on August 18, 2015, and the above summary order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not bear the obligation of indemnity against the Defendant on the ground that there was no joint and several guarantee regarding the instant contract.

Nevertheless, since the defendant demanded the payment of indemnity to the plaintiff, the lawsuit of this case is recognized as benefit of confirmation.

(b) the defendant.