2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant is each insurance listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto (hereinafter "each insurance of this case No. 1 through No. 11") purchased by the plaintiff A.

) Each insurance listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each insurance listed in the separate sheet No. 12 through 14”) to which Plaintiff B and Plaintiff B subscribed, and all of the insurances listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through 14 of this case are collectively referred to as “each insurance of this case”

(2) The Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the claim for termination refund received upon the termination of each of the instant insurance contracts or the claim for the return of termination refund against the insurance company after the termination of the instant insurance contracts after the change of the policyholder to the Defendant, or after the lapse of the insurance contract, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of termination refund or the refund for termination refund of the Plaintiff B is KRW 12,490,933, and the claim for return of termination refund or the refund for termination refund of the Plaintiff B is KRW 1,123,084. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the claim for termination refund received upon the termination of each of the instant insurance contracts to the insurance company, or the amount equivalent to the claim for termination refund held by the Plaintiff against the insurance company. Therefore, the Plaintiff must pay the Plaintiff

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that with respect to each insurance of this case for which the plaintiffs requested the return of the termination refund, the insurance money that the defendant paid on behalf of the plaintiffs is superior to the termination refund and deducted or offset from unjust enrichment for which the plaintiffs seek the return, the defendant's claim should be dismissed because it does not remain unjust enrichment that the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition 1 as to the plaintiffs' grounds for claims, based on Gap evidence 1-1 to 10, Gap evidence 2-2 to 4-2, and each of the financial transaction information reply results of Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. on June 22, 2016 and March 9, 2017, the plaintiffs are each of the insurance contracts in this case as the economic situation becomes difficult.