logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2015.04.23 2013가합1111
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 23, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) between July 4, 2008 and January 30, 201 with the amount of the said insurance contract as KRW 313,879,00 on November 5, 2009, and the insurance period as KRW 313,879,00 on May 30, 201, in order to deposit the expenses for restoration to the original state as the guaranty insurance policy after obtaining permission for conversion of the said insurance contract from the voice group C and two parcels, and then the Plaintiff changed the insurance period to the insurance period as KRW 168,78,00 on April 13, 2010, and then extended the insurance period as KRW 313,879,00 on May 30, 201.

On the other hand, B, on November 5, 2009, jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity obligation to be borne by the Plaintiff according to the insurance contract of this case, and thereafter, even when concluding each of the above changes contracts, B jointly and severally guaranteed.

(2) Article 7(1) of the instant insurance contract provides that “When the Plaintiff receives a claim for insurance money from the insured or receives a preliminary notice of an insured incident, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to demand a prior reimbursement without demanding or notifying the guarantor, even before the payment of the insurance money.”

B. (1) On July 29, 2010, a person filed an application for extension of the period of mountainous district conversion with the voice group for a prior demand for reimbursement of damages. On October 27, 2010, the voice group sent a public notice to the effect that the period of mountainous district conversion is extended by July 31, 2012, and the restoration expenses are deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of deposit of restoration expenses.

(2) However, as the monthly development did not deposit the restoration expenses even after being notified of the deposit of the restoration expenses, the voice group approved the extension of the period of mountainous district conversion to the Plaintiff on March 30, 201, but paid the restoration expenses.

arrow