logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.27 2019가합572895
채무부존재확인
Text

Attached Form

There is no obligation of indemnity against the defendant based on the performance guarantee insurance policy stated in the list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) on the interior and light-weight part of E-built apartment construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) on the contract amount of KRW 2,310,00,000, and the construction period from February 23, 2016 to April 30, 2017.

On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant performance guarantee contract”) with respect to the instant contract.

The name of contract principal for performance guarantee insurance: Standard subcontract price for construction works (E-new apartment construction works and light-scale construction works): F insurance contractor: the insured of the plaintiff: 231,000,000 insurance period: from February 23, 2016 to April 30, 2017 (433 days): Contract deposit under a construction contract:

B. Upon the conclusion of the instant contract and the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff continued construction in accordance with the instant contract, and received KRW 1.62,00,000 from C as the construction cost, following the judgment of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.62,00,000 to C, and at the Plaintiff’s request, C paid KRW 49,823,000,000 around January 25, 2017, and KRW 337,11,948 to the Plaintiff’s re-contractor, respectively.

C on April 21, 2017, sent to the Plaintiff a document verifying the termination of the instant contract on the grounds of the instant delay in construction. The content-certified mail sent to the Plaintiff around that time.

On August 11, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures by 2017/100129, and was decided to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan on January 10, 2018, and was decided to terminate rehabilitation procedures on March 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedures”). C did not report the Plaintiff’s claim under the instant contract as a rehabilitation claim during the instant rehabilitation procedures, and the Defendant under the instant guarantee agreement.

arrow