손해배상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff corresponding to the revoked part shall be against the Defendants.
1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows: (a) from the fourth to the third to the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) from the fourth to the second half of the judgment, the following items are added; and (c) from the first instance judgment, the part of the “insurance money” and each of the “payment premium” in the attached Table of the judgment of the court of first instance as “payment premium” are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form of the judgment of the first instance); and (d)
Next, the insurance period of the instant insurance contract is set from June 25, 2007 to the time when the insured reaches 90 years of age. Although the termination refund is paid at the time of early termination, there is no maturity refund paid at maturity. Defendant B, as an insurance solicitor, was engaged in insurance solicitation for the Defendant Company from August 1, 2004.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B caused damage to the Plaintiff by committing an act of violating the following duties against the Plaintiff in soliciting the instant insurance on behalf of the Defendant Company. In accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for damages to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 102(1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 10394, Jul. 23, 2010; hereinafter the same), pursuant to Article 102(1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 10394, Jul. 23, 2010; hereinafter the same), the Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff (=53,603,943 (=a total of 368,585,040 won paid by the Plaintiff - total of 314,981,097 won received as cancellation refund) and delay damages therefrom).
Defendant B, a person engaged in insurance solicitation, has a duty to comply with the principle of suitability not to recommend the conclusion of an insurance contract that is inappropriate for the policyholder. In violation of this, Defendant B recommended the conclusion of the instant insurance contract that is inappropriate for the Plaintiff.
hereinafter referred to as "the first chapter"
B. According to the instant insurance contract.