logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.11.28 2013가합3097
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 359,887,250 and the period from August 30, 2013 to November 28, 2013.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose is the education support business, economic business, and banking business under the Banking Act of the member cooperatives. The Defendants are companies with the purpose of concluding various insurance contracts, collecting insurance premiums under the relevant contract, paying insurance proceeds, etc.

B. Around July 6, 2007, 2007, luminous Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1) concluded a shipbuilding contract and an advance refund guarantee contract (hereinafter “luminous Shipbuilding”) with four foreign vessel owners, including Polest Polest Pte. Ltd, respectively, to build vessels between KS-107, KS-107, KS-109, KS-110 (hereinafter “each 107”), 108, 109, 110, 110, hereinafter “10, 190,” and 19,000 US dollars per vessel; (b) around July 20, 2007, the vessel shipbuilding agreement was concluded between 19,000 U.S. vessel owner and 4 foreign vessel owner; and (c) each of the vessel’s vessel’s vessel’s vessel’s vessel’s vessel’s 10,000 U.S.A.M. 15, 205.

(2) On July 27, 2007, Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance”) entered into an advance refund guarantee contract with the terms that the above Defendant guarantees the obligation to return advance payment, in case where the luminous shipbuilding did not perform the obligation under each shipbuilding contract with respect to the vessels of 105 and 106, and thus is liable to return the advance payment received from the purchaser of each of the above vessels. The Defendant Green Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Green Damage Insurance Co., Ltd.”) agreed to take over 50% of the obligation under the said advance refund guarantee contract.

(3) On August 2, 2007, the Plaintiff received advance payment from the purchaser of each of the above vessels due to the luminous shipbuilding’s failure to perform the obligation under each shipbuilding contract with respect to the vessel of 107 through 110.

arrow