손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 30, 2010, through C, an insurance solicitor belonging to a personal asset management consulting service company, “B,” the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant, the insured, and the beneficiary, “Plaintiff”, “10,000,000 won”, and “300,000 won” with monthly payment insurance premium (the name of the goods PCA link 30,000 won; hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
B. On May 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for asset management consultation with the above company on the first day of June 1, 2010, and around June 1, 2010, C provided a comparative explanation of the changed amount social insurance and the social insurance around June 10, 2010 and suggested the purchase of the instant insurance.
Plaintiff
The short-term financial goals of married couple were prepared for childbirth and emergency reserve funds (which was not scheduled to give birth at the time of consultation or accession), and the long-term financial goals were prepared for child education, marriage, and retirement. The plaintiff is a dietitian at the oriental medical hospital, and there was income equivalent to KRW 2,00,000 per month, while the plaintiff was obligated to pay monthly to her husband, but the couple's income was 5,100,000 won per month.
C. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 19,800,000 as an insurance premium from May 2016, and around November 3, 2016, terminated the instant insurance contract and received KRW 16,873,795 as the termination refund.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 9, 14 through 17, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Since an insurance solicitor C violated the duty of customer protection, such as the duty of explanation and suitability, at the time of entering into the insurance contract of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the insurance company’s liability under Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act.
3. Determination
A. Whether the duty of explanation is violated or not, the amount of variable insurance in the relevant legal doctrine is life insurance.