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

A. On January 7, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased an accelerator franchise insurance policy operated by the Defendant and paid insurance premiums, but the said insurance contract was invalidated on April 11, 201.

B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the insurance, the Defendant announced the Plaintiff that the insurance contract can be restored within two years after its lapse, and the Financial Supervisory Service also responded to the Plaintiff to the same purport. Although the Defendant did not have any problem as to the result of the Plaintiff’s health examination on the ground that the Defendant, who applied for the restoration of the said insurance contract, did not undergo health examination, the Defendant rejected the said insurance contract’s restoration on behalf

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 3,269,760 paid by the Plaintiff as the insurance premium, and KRW 130,00,000, which the Plaintiff could have received from the said insurance, as the return of unjust enrichment, and the damages for delay stated in the purport of the claim therefor.

2. Determination and conclusion are based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s above assertion was unfairly rejected, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the restoration of the insurance contract was unfairly rejected, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.