2. C.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. Defendant C bears the cost of appeal by Defendant C.

According to the records, the court below accepted the Plaintiff’s primary claim against Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and did not separately determine the Defendants’ conjunctive claim. Accordingly, Defendant C’s final appeal is unlawful as it is not allowed as there is no benefit to file a final appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)

A. The court below reasoned that the contract of this case, "the day following the 90th day after the date when the liability of the defendant company with respect to cancer diagnosis costs" was an important content of the insurance contract, and is obligated to explain it to the defendants, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant C, an insurance solicitor, explained the product description stating the contents of the contract of this case to the plaintiff and explain it based solely on the fact that the defendant C, the insurance solicitor, issued a product description stating the contents of the contract of this case, and asked whether the plaintiff, who was at risk of be exposed to the ambrance, knew it to the defendant C at the time of the insurance contract of this case, and was able to terminate the existing insurance of this case, and immediately after the previous insurance was able to receive cancer diagnosis costs, considering the fact that the plaintiff could not know the existing insurance contract of this case and eventually have concluded the insurance contract of this case, the court below determined that the defendant C could not claim the terms of the contract of this case in this case as the content of the insurance contract of this case.

B. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

1) According to the records of the court below, the following facts are recognized.

A) At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff, upon receiving a product description and a design document stating the material content of the instant insurance contract from Defendant C, prepared a written confirmation with the intent to explain the content thereof, and the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract were written in several parts.

B) After entering into the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff entered that “Cances” was provided with a guidance to the effect that “Cances were commenced from the day after the 90th day from the date of the initial contract or the date of restoration, after accessing the Defendant Company’s Internet website.”

C) The civil petition documents submitted by the Plaintiff to the Financial Supervisory Service stated as follows: “Pain Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don

2) Further to the above facts, Defendant C’s explanation of the contents of the insurance based on the purchase design stated in the main contents of the insurance of this case is also acknowledged by the Plaintiff. The confirmation signed by the Plaintiff or the complete sale monitoring prepared by itself, itself, shall be deemed to have substantial probative value. Documents submitted by Defendant C, clearly stated that Defendant C explained the terms and conditions of this case, the Plaintiff was determined as a flexible decision, but the Plaintiff was not suspected of being aware of it at the time of the insurance contract, and the Plaintiff’s termination of the existing insurance contract of this case cannot be deemed to have not known of the terms and conditions of this case. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C explained the terms and conditions of this case according to the product description and subscription design at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case and delivered the terms and conditions thereafter.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendants failed to explain the terms and conditions of this case on the sole ground of the circumstances contrary thereto. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to explain the terms and conditions, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

3. Conclusion

Defendant C’s appeal is dismissed, without any need to determine the remainder of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Company, and the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. In addition, the costs incurred from the final appeal by Defendant C are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim In-young

Justices Kim Jong-il