beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant on July 29, 2013 under the sales contract for the business software is all obligations.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 29, 2013, between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company purchased from the Plaintiff Company the license and maintenance program of software, such as the program, and received system construction and education services, and paid to the Plaintiff Company the amount of KRW 250 million in its payment, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. The Plaintiff Company entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant Company, the purchase price of the insurance, the insurance price of KRW 25 million, and the insurance period from July 29, 2013 to May 31, 2014 with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company”), which guarantees the performance of the instant contract, and issued the surety insurance policy under the said insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance policy”) on September 27, 2013 from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company, and delivered it to the Defendant Company.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff Company asserted that the contract of this case was concluded in the process of negotiations with B Co., Ltd. (the trade name was changed to C; hereinafter only the same shall apply) and was immediately discarded. Since the insurance certificate of this case was issued and delivered for the purpose of executive gain, etc. for concluding the contract with B, the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company cannot be deemed to have concluded the contract of this case due to the lack of substantial intent or agreement for concluding the contract of this case. Even if it is not a domestic affairs, the contract of this case was terminated due to the Defendant Company’s failure to perform the obligation to pay advance payment, or the Defendant Company did not incur any loss or damage under the contract of this case.
Nevertheless, the defendant company is in the insurance policy of this case.