beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was provided by the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 8,944,476 from July 12, 2016 to August 16, 2016 while operating the Marart in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.
B. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the condition that “the policyholder, the insured, the Defendant, the insurance amount of KRW 10,000,000, and the insurance period from July 11, 2016 to July 10, 2017,” and issued the said bond to the Defendant.
C. On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff did not pay the above goods, and the Defendant claimed insurance money under the performance guarantee insurance contract, which the Plaintiff joined with the Nonparty Company.
The non-party company is withholding the payment of insurance money after receiving a written objection against the defendant's insurance claim from the plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4 and Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant goods were transferred to Nonparty D with the right to operate the said Cart, and D was exempted from the obligation to pay for the instant goods. Since the Plaintiff knew of such fact to the Defendant around October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to pay for the instant goods.
B. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff entered into a contract with D on October 19, 2016 for the transfer of business rights and facilities of the said Cmate.
However, only the above facts alone, D exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay the instant goods to the Defendant.
It is difficult to view that the defendant agreed to accept D's exemption from liability, and if it is not clear whether the defendant is exempted from liability in the acquisition of the obligation, or whether the overlapping underwriter is an unidentified, it shall be applied.