2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 20% interest per annum from December 3, 2005 to the day of complete payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 8, it may be recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, or it is obvious to this court:

A. On May 11, 2004, the Plaintiff issued an executory exemplification of the Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na4657 decided on May 11, 2004 (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29156 Decided September 13, 2004) (the dismissal of the appeal is finalized by dismissal of the appeal in Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29156 Decided September 13, 2004), “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from February 1, 2004 to May 11, 2004, 20% per annum 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” and the Plaintiff was served with the Defendant on November 11, 2004, with the debt collection of KRW 86,075,446 on each insurance contract, etc. or refund money deposited by the Nonparty against the Defendant under the attached list No. 1 list, which was served with the Defendant on November 2014, 20014.

B. As a collection authority on the claim for insurance money or refund money for cancellation under each of the above insurance contracts, a copy of the complaint of this case seeking the payment was served on the defendant on November 9, 2005, and the amount of each claim stated in the separate sheet as of February 17, 2006 is as shown in the separate sheet 2.

2. Determination:

A. The creditor of the policyholder who received a collection order against the cancellation refund claim of the insurance contract can exercise the right to terminate the insurance contract on the basis of the collection right (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da84183, May 28, 2004). Thus, the insurance contract of this case was terminated on November 9, 2005 by the delivery of the copy of the above collection right.

The defendant argues that granting a contractor the right to terminate a life insurance contract should be entrusted to the contractor's judgment on whether the insurance will continue, and that continuing the insurance is more favorable to the execution creditor because the cancellation refund does not reach the insurance premium paid when the insurance contract is terminated in the middle, and it is more favorable for the execution creditor to continue the insurance. Therefore, even if the collection order was issued, the creditor cannot terminate the insurance contract by subrogation of the insurance contractor. However, there is no ground to exclude the above claim from the debtor's execution property by paying the insurance money or the refund money for insurance termination, and if this is allowed, there is no ground to exclude it from the debtor's execution property.

B. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the collection right holder the amount of KRW 50 million which the plaintiff seeks and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 3, 2005 to the date of full payment after the written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case was served on the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions shall be revoked in an unfair manner, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendant to pay the above recognized amount.

【Attached List and Table Omitted】

Judges Han-ho (Presiding Judge)