logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.19 2019가단5248053
구상금 등 청구의 소
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 27,874,322 as well as 6% per annum from August 17, 2019 to September 15, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract (payment) with Defendant B, an insurance solicitor of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) regarding the obligation to refund fees that Defendant B would be borne by the Nonparty Company.

At the time, when the plaintiff pays insurance proceeds to the non-party company, the plaintiff and the defendant B paid the insurance proceeds to the plaintiff, but they paid damages for delay in addition to the interest rate applicable to delay damages publicly notified by the plaintiff. The interest rate applicable to delay damages publicly notified by the plaintiff is 6% per annum from the day following the payment date of insurance proceeds to the 30th day from the day following

B. The non-party company, as a security of the above performance guarantee insurance contract, paid the fee for insurance solicitation to Defendant B. After that, due to the failure of the insurance contract solicited by Defendant B, Defendant B bears the obligation to refund the fee to the non-party company, the Plaintiff paid KRW 27,874,32 to the non-party company on August 16, 2019 according to the above performance guarantee insurance contract (payment).

C. Meanwhile, on July 2018, Defendant B, upon consultation with Defendant C, donated the instant house, which was the only real estate in one’s name, to Defendant C, due to consolation money and division of property on October 31, 2009 (the marriage report of October 27, 2009), and accordingly, on August 2, 2018, the ownership transfer registration of the instant house was completed under Defendant C’s name.

At the time of division of property, the Defendants designated Defendant C as a person with parental authority and custodian of two children, and Defendant C did not claim child support to Defendant B, and Defendant C did not claim any claim against Defendant B in relation to the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant housing.

After all, the above collateral security has been executed, and the auction procedure for the real estate was conducted (the Jeju District Court E's E's auction for real estate).

arrow