beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 63,91,241 and KRW 62,602,141 among the Plaintiff and KRW 12% per annum from September 20, 2017 to February 27, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract with C Co., Ltd. with the following contents. Defendant B, the policyholder, did not perform the contract with the insured, thereby paying the insurance proceeds to the insured, the policyholder would immediately pay the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff, but at the same time, the delayed damages would be paid. On the other hand, Defendant B guaranteed joint and several liability for indemnity.
(c) Sound Securities Number: Amount of insurance coverage for daily energy: 9,050,209 won: Performance of the insurance contract for daily energy: B
B. The following is that the above corporation did not carry out a contract, and the plaintiff paid the insurance money to the insured, and the details of the indemnity obligation and the damages for delay are as follows:
The payment date of insurance proceeds: 82,76,972 won: 20,174,831 won for a refund of insurance proceeds: 62,602,141 won for a fixed delay delay amount: 1,389,100 won for a delay interest rate from February 20, 2017 (Calculation Date: September 19, 2017): 12% for a lack of dispute; 12% for a lack of dispute; each entry in subparagraphs 1 through 5; the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of joint and several liability for reimbursement, calculated by applying the rate of 12% per annum as to the delayed interest rate from September 20, 2017 to February 27, 2018, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and the delay interest rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
3. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the above indemnity obligation with the defendant Eul. Thus, the defendant Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 5 revealed as the result of the appraiser E's completion appraisal that it is not the penology of the defendant Eul.