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

A. The Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 entered into a loan transaction agreement with Nonparty 1 on October 7, 2004, the loan extended to KRW 10,000,000,000 from the date of loan commencement, and on October 7, 2010, on the date when the loan expires, and filed a lawsuit claiming a loan on the ground of the cause of claim, and subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming a loan on February 8, 2012, “1,518,361 won and damages for delay calculated by 21% per annum from April 30, 201 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gau2415951)” and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. Meanwhile, on April 29, 2004, Nonparty 1 entered into an insurance contract for non-party 2 (00 years old), monthly payment KRW 200,000,60 (5 years) with the Defendant, insurance period 22 years old, maturity date 22 years old, and non-party 1 remains in full payment of insurance money. The main coverage of the above insurance contract is as follows (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

00 Maturity congratulatory money: The amount accumulated at the time of maturity until the expiration of the insurance period.

* means the amount calculated by deducting the additional premium and risk premium from the insurance premium under this contract, and by calculating the date from the date of payment to 1.5% of the loan interest rate for the interest rate-based product;

○ Death insurance money: A reserve at the time of death before the age of 15;

20 million won upon death after the age of 15 + the amount accumulated at the time of death

○ Hospitalization expenses, treatment expenses, surgery expenses, etc.

C. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim attachment and collection order with respect to the refund, etc. payable by Nonparty 1 at the time of termination of the insurance contract of this case, with the Jung-gu District Court 2013TTTT1281, with the claim claim amounting to KRW 15,266,319 based on the above final judgment, and received a decision of acceptance on January 24, 201. The above decision was served on the Defendant on the 29th of

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s service of a duplicate of the instant complaint as the collection right holder should terminate the instant insurance contract and claim the payment of refund for cancellation. The Defendant asserted that the instant insurance contract constitutes a claim prohibited from seizure as a guarantee insurance, and that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust.

B. Determination

(1) Article 246(1)7 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “The insurance money (including refund for termination or maturity) of a guaranteed insurance that a debtor receives due to life, injury, disease, accident, etc. shall not be seized, but the scope of prohibition of seizure shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Accordingly, Article 6(1)3(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The amount of refund for cancellation arising from the creditor’s exercise of the debtor’s right to terminate the insurance contract or by exercise of the creditor’s right to terminate the insurance contract under Article 404 of the Civil Act by exercising the creditor’s right to terminate the insurance contract or by exercising the right to terminate the insurance contract

"Guarantee Insurance" is an insurance product, the main purpose of which is to pay insurance proceeds promised to an insured in preparation for economic risks that may arise in relation to the life and body of the insured, such as life, injury, disease, and accident, and is not to exceed the total amount of insurance premiums paid by an insurance company when an insurance accident is terminated in the middle or at maturity without occurrence of the insurance accident. The savings insurance is an insurance product with the main purpose of raising money or old age funds for the life of the insured, and the amount of refund paid when the insured is alive and the maturity comes more than the total amount of the insurance premiums paid at maturity (the amount of money calculated at a certain interest rate shall be added to the paid insurance premium).

(2) In light of the above criteria, the instant insurance contract is required to pay the amount calculated by adding 20 million won to the reserve only when the insured dies between the age of 22, who is within the insurance period after the age of 15. However, if the insured is alive until the age of 22, which is the expiration of the insurance period, the principal and interest of the amount calculated by deducting additional premium and risk premium from the paid-in premium, is returned to the reserve, and thus, it does not exceed the total insurance premium paid when the insured is alive. Thus, it is reasonable to

(3) Even if the nature of the instant insurance is mixed with the nature of a certain savings insurance as alleged by the Plaintiff, the reason for recognizing the obligee’s right to terminate the collection order is permitted as an act within the scope of the purpose of collecting the claim. In the case of a guaranteed insurance, even if the insurance contract is terminated, the claim for the cancellation refund cannot be collected as it constitutes the claim subject to prohibition of seizure under the Civil Execution Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the obligee’s right to terminate the instant insurance contract shall be restricted. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the instant insurance contract remains effective, and the said insurance contract constitutes the guaranteed insurance, and the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to terminate the instant insurance contract as a collection right holder, and there

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge)