ELB Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yang Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 22, 2011

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da68867 Decided May 31, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 100,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part as to the matters asserted by the plaintiff in the trial. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the term of the contract for the electronic equipment supply contract with the Kelim Construction Co., Ltd. is from September 19, 2008 to October 31, 2008, but in fact, the term of the contract was calculated by the completion of the supply until September 2008, and therefore, the period of the contract is calculated by the payment period until January 31, 2009, and the issuance of the tax invoice is delayed and the payment period is delayed until February 28, 2009.

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that there was a change in the contract period as alleged by the Plaintiff, as well as there is no evidence to prove that the contract period has been changed, and since the execution period of the supply contract of the above electronic equipment was extended from the fact that it was within the original insurance period to the subsequent insurance period, the insurance period is not extended according to the execution period of the contract extended, but the insurer is merely liable for insurance for the insurance accidents that occurred within the original insurance period, and it is clear that the payment period of the above promissory note does not belong to the insurance period regardless

B. The Plaintiff concluded the instant guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of goods. However, under the premise that the payment period is delayed due to the field circumstances and the extension of the contract period is general, the Defendant issued a guaranty insurance policy that does not subscribe to such additional risk burden clause, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the Defendant violated the duty of explanation of the terms and conditions and violated the good faith principle, and thus, the instant additional risk clause should be applied. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant guarantee insurance policy should be applied, or that the Defendant violated the duty of explanation of the terms and conditions and violated the good faith principle. Rather, if the Plaintiff’s argument appears in each of the arguments stated in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 8, and the entire purport of the argument presented in the evidence No. 8, the additional risk burden clause does not constitute the Plaintiff’s electrical and electronic equipment contract that continues to apply to the instant supply contract by continuously supplying goods or services during the contract period, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned additional risk burden clause does not constitute the Plaintiff’s electrical and electronic equipment contract.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Tae-sung (Presiding Justice)