beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional determination, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different, even considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. Additional decision
A. On July 1, 2013, the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant construction project was not completed within the warranty period stipulated in the advance payment guarantee agreement, and the advance payment amount to be returned was KRW 30,936,364. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money of KRW 30,936,364 under the said advance payment guarantee agreement and the delay damages therefor.
B. Determination 1) In the case of performance guarantee insurance, such as an advance payment contract, if the insured extends the due date prior to the due date of the insurance contract, the policyholder shall not have defaulted on the due date prior to the due date. Even if the insured and the policyholder have postponed the due date of the performance under the main contract, the insurance period under the insurance contract between the insurance company and the policyholder shall not be changed naturally. Thus, insofar as the due date of the delayed performance is obvious after the due date of the insurance contract, even if the due date of the payment was not implemented after the due date of the contract, it does not constitute a ground for the payment of insurance proceeds under the insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da32263, Apr. 11, 1997). According to the evidence examined earlier, ① the Plaintiff’s construction to the Extraordinary Construction Corporation on January 28, 2013, with regard to the construction of this case, the period of construction, as well as the construction of this case’s KRW 3.25 million from January 28, 2013.