(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.10 2016가단5045581

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.10 2016가단5045581

보험금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance agency contract with the two Lolua Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Durua”) on March 2, 2011.

At that time, Maluma entered into a guarantee insurance contract (payment) with the Defendant for the guarantee of the repayment of the fee pursuant to the insurance agency contract entered into with the Plaintiff, and thereafter offered the guarantee certificate issued by the Defendant as security to the Plaintiff.

From March 2, 2011 to March 1, 2013, the instant insurance concluded that the insurance period was from March 2, 2011 to March 1, 2013, with the content of the guarantee as “payment guarantee for an insurance company’s obligation to refund fees (limited to the obligation under the payment guarantee provision and the obligation under a monetary loan agreement shall not be secured)” and that the insurance amount was KRW 20 million (the increase on September 26, 201).

In Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap58239, the 2010 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation that the obligation to return fees does not exist in excess of 17,140,668 won. On April 29, 2014, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of the 2ndomia on the ground that the fee to be refunded to the Plaintiff by the 2ndomia remains in KRW 191,543,300.

(Next from the following point of view, the relevant judgment entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to make monthly installment payments from December 201 to April 2012, 201, with respect to KRW 32,216,00,00 of the fee to be refunded by the Duomia to KRW 191,543,30, as well as KRW 191,216,00, as the fee to be refunded by the Duomia, “The fee to be charged by the Duomia to the Plaintiff on October 2011 shall be changed to be charged by the Plaintiff, and the fee to be charged by the Duomia to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011 shall be paid additionally.” The relevant judgment stated that “32,216,000, which has not yet been paid, shall be treated as the refund of KRW 16,108,00 as well as on April 2012, including the amount of the debt to be refunded.”

The related decision was final and conclusive by the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Maomia.

The defendant.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.01.24 2015가단79047

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.16 2016가단5105995

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나27524

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.13 2017나4712

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2016나85295