2. Upon the plaintiff's preliminary claim at the trial, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,736,080 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from May 4, 198 to October 12, 1990, and an annual interest rate of 25% from the next day to the full payment rate.

3. The plaintiff's remaining conjunctive claims are dismissed.

4. Three minutes of the costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

5. The above paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,000,000 won with an interest of 25 percent per annum from May 4, 198 to the date of full payment. If the above claim is without merit, the amount equivalent to 20,000,000 won per annum from May 4, 198 to the date of the final judgment of the court of the first instance, and the amount equivalent to 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution. (The portion of the preliminary claim is added at the trial)

A. A. Around May 3, 1985, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant company (the first defendant company's trade name was changed to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., but the trade name was changed to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., on July 3, 1989) for special accumulation insurance (in the case of the latter in the form of a combination of insurance covering a disaster or death as an insured event and the insurance covering a certain amount if the insured remains until the expiration of the insurance period, it is the insurance that the insurer should pay all the insurance premiums up to the time of the termination of the insurance period as well as the remaining existence at the time of the termination of the insurance period). There is no dispute between the parties to the contract.

B. As a factual ground for the primary claim of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that he paid the above insurance premium of KRW 20,000 to the Defendant Company through Nonparty 1, who is an employee of the Defendant Company, on 36 occasions. Accordingly, the Defendant Company asserted that the insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff during the period is only the first five minutes, and that the remainder of the insurance premium cannot be paid because it was not paid.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s insurance premium was lawfully paid to the Defendant Company by Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3-4 (Written Indictment), Nonparty 17 (Written Evidence), Nonparty 3-3-5 (Written Evidence 18,22-9), and Nonparty 7-1, 2, and 3 (No. 5-3). The Plaintiff’s insurance premium was paid to Nonparty 1 by Nonparty 5’s non-party company’s non-party 1’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party.

According to the above facts, from among the 36th insurance premiums received from the plaintiff, the non-party 1 retired from the defendant company 5th insurance premiums received by him when he works as an employee of the defendant company, and the other 30th insurance premiums shall be paid to the defendant company 6 times in 1986 after he retired from the defendant company, and the other 30th insurance premiums shall be paid to the defendant company , even though he did not have any authority to receive the above insurance premiums from the plaintiff after he retired from the defendant company, and in such a case, the above 30th insurance premiums paid by the plaintiff to the non-party 1 for his own personal use shall not be deemed as effective as the insurance premiums paid legally by the defendant company in relation to the defendant company. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion seeking the above insurance premiums against the defendant company on the premise that the plaintiff had all 36th insurance premiums paid to the defendant company is groundless in this regard.

C. Even if the plaintiff is not an insurance solicitor of the defendant company, the non-party 1 arranged the plaintiff to buy the above insurance premium and paid the above insurance premium to the defendant company, so the non-party 1 was an agent about the receipt of the insurance premium and related acts of the defendant company. Therefore, even after the non-party 1 resigned from the defendant company on October 24, 1985, the defendant company's receipt of the insurance premium constitutes an expression act after the termination of the right of representation. Thus, even if the non-party 1's receipt of the insurance premium was not an expression act of the non-party 1's insurance premium, the defendant company's receipt of the above insurance premium was not a mere fact that the non-party 1's receipt of the above insurance premium was not a mere act of expression, but it is not a liability for the plaintiff company because the non-party 1's receipt of the insurance premium was not a mere receipt of the above insurance premium from the non-party 1's company, and it is still an employee of the defendant company's first receipt of the above insurance premium.

According to the above facts, between the non-party 1 and the plaintiff, when he was employed as an employee of the defendant company, he was involved in the conclusion of the above insurance contract and the receipt of insurance premium between the defendant company and the plaintiff. After the resignation of the defendant company, the act of receiving the insurance premium from the plaintiff is an act of a person who is not authorized to act as an agent for the defendant company. However, as seen above, around 1982 when the plaintiff was in office as the head of the defendant company and the insurance solicitor, the non-party 1 had purchased the same kind of insurance as the insurance of this case as the defendant company around 1982 when he was in office as the head of the defendant company and the non-party 1, and the insurance of this case was concluded with the defendant company through the non-party 1, as well as the fact that the non-party 1 was in office as an employee of the defendant company after the resignation of the defendant company, the act of receiving the above insurance premium by proxy after the resignation of the non-party 1 can be seen as an act of receiving the above insurance premium.

However, as seen above, the receipt (as part of the receipt No. 7-1,2, and3) that was received five times before Nonparty 1 initially retired from the Defendant Company and that was issued to the Plaintiff after resignation of the Defendant Company (as seen above, the above evidence No. 3-6) was compared with the appearance, size, shape, etc., and the above evidence No. 3-16 (Receipt) was indicated as follows. In light of the fact that the above serial number is the same and the number of payment and the receipt date are indicated in the shape, the Plaintiff could easily identify the above difference at the time of the issuance of each of the above receipts from Nonparty 1, even though it was possible to easily find the above difference, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff paid the above insurance premium to Nonparty 1 until the expiration of the above insurance period, and thus, it cannot be said that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s expression expression agent is therefore groundless from this point.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

In the event that Nonparty 1 retired from office on the ground that the above insurance premium was not paid to Nonparty 1 and the policyholder had been working for the above defendant company as a general partner of the above defendant company, and the insurance premium was paid to the defendant company at the office of the defendant company, as seen above, and the above insurance premium was paid to the non-party 1. According to the above evidence No. 3 and No. 4, No. 9, and No. 10, No. 10, the above insurance premium was paid to the non-party 1 and the defendant company did not know that the above insurance premium was paid to the non-party 1, and the insurance premium was paid to the non-party 6 without being paid to the non-party 1, the defendant company was not paid to the non-party 1. The non-party 3, who was the director of the above office of the court below, was not entitled to recover the insurance premium to the non-party 1, as stated above, by the non-party 1's insurance premium subscription to the defendant company.

According to the above facts, the non-party 1, who is an employee of the defendant company, knew that the non-party 1 was not an insurance solicitor of the defendant company, but did not pay the above insurance premium to the non-party 1, and did not pay the above insurance premium to the non-party 1, which would result in the non-party 1's violation of the insurance business law, and accepted the above insurance contract as legitimate insurance solicitation. The non-party 1, through the non-party 1, did not pay the insurance premium to the plaintiff four times until the non-party 1 resigned, and the non-party 1 did not pay the above insurance premium to the non-party 1, and it was believed that the non-party 1 did not pay the above insurance premium to the non-party 1's employees until the non-party 1 did not receive the above insurance premium due to the non-party 1's failure to pay the insurance premium, and even if so, the non-party 1 did not receive the above insurance premium to the non-party 1's address.

However, as seen in the above facts, the plaintiff's negligence in the occurrence and expansion of the damage of this case was not much contributed to the plaintiff's own negligence. Therefore, this is considered in determining the amount of compensation for the defendant, but considering the relation between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, the circumstances leading to the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, the amount of the above insurance premium paid by the plaintiff to the non-party 1, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, the plaintiff's negligence ratio should be sufficient to exceed 30 percent.

Furthermore, as to the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant, although the Plaintiff asserted the total amount of the above insurance money that the Plaintiff did not receive, the above amount can only be paid as insurance money only when the insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant exists effectively and the Plaintiff paid the fixed amount of the insurance premium. In this case, it is reasonable to deem that it is the total amount of each insurance premium that the Plaintiff actually paid to Nonparty 1. In the same case, it is clear that the amount of 18,194,400 won (based on calculation, 505.40 x 36) is calculated, and the amount calculated according to the percentage of the Plaintiff’s fault contributed to the occurrence of the damages as seen above is ultimately deducted from the above amount, it is clear that the amount to be paid by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff is 12,736,080 won.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed without any reasons, and the conjunctive claim of this case is dismissed, and since April 26, 198, 198, 12,736,080 won of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's main claim of this case was finally paid the above insurance premium to non-party 1, and it is reasonable for the defendant company to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation from May 4, 198 to the date of the final decision of the court below. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the plaintiff's main claim of this case shall be accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without any reasons. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's main claim is just, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case shall be ordered to pay the above additional amount, and the remainder shall be dismissed by the provisional execution pursuant to Article 985 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge)