The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the re-insurance to the Plaintiff on behalf of the re-insurer, if the re-insurer did not pay the re-insurance proceeds.

In addition, the lower court determined that the Defendant, as a mandatory, is liable for nonperformance to the Plaintiff only if he was negligent in the appointment and supervision of the re-insurance broker company, and that the intention or negligence of the re-insurance broker cannot be immediately viewed as the Defendant’s intention

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of disposal documents or performance assistants, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The ground of appeal No. 4 refers to the difference between the property damage due to nonperformance and the current property damage due to nonperformance, i.e., the property damage that would have existed if the nonperformance had not occurred.

(2) The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care was not the amount equivalent to the insurance amount paid by the Plaintiff, but the amount equivalent to the re-insurance amount not paid to the Plaintiff, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant knew or could have known that it was impossible to conclude the re-insurance contract with a re-insurance company with excellent credit rating at the time of accepting the advance refund guarantee insurance jointly with the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant was deemed to have breached the duty of care of a good manager in managing the affairs delegated by the Plaintiff regarding the conclusion of the re-insurance contract.