A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence. The instant pension insurance was developed related to the construction of a house of old age, and the construction of a house of old age that can be occupied by the instant pension insurance holders was reported to various newspapers prior to the sale of the instant pension insurance, and the Defendant, at the time of the commencement of the sale of the instant pension insurance, directly advertised the instant pension insurance by inserting the phrase “which gives priority to the Defendant’s moving-in of the house of old age that would be a primary construction,” and the notice on the instant pension insurance, also states that the Defendant’s insurance policy gives priority to the Defendant’s moving-in of the house of old age, such as medical and recreational facilities planned to be built, which could not be identical to the trust of the general insurance company, and thus, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ contribution to the right to move-in of old age based on the aforementioned news reports, notice, etc. was highly affected by the lower court’s decision.

However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

An offer is a conclusive declaration of intent aimed at establishing a certain contract in combination with the consent of the other party corresponding thereto. On the other hand, the inducement of an offer is not an expression of intent constituting an agreement, and even if the inducer expresses his/her intent in response thereto, the contract is concluded by the person who has induced the offer without entering into the contract, and the other party expresses his/her intent to accept the offer again. In light of this, the sale advertising is generally limited to the nature of inducing the offer. Furthermore, the advertisement in lots is merely a content of the contract in light of the specific terms and conditions of transaction, i.e., the content of the contract, and the other party is deemed to be able to claim the performance of the contract, barring any special circumstance, such advertisement does not constitute an offer which forms the content of the contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da5812, Jun. 1,

13. According to the above criteria, if advertising of pension insurance through publicity notice or newspapers, etc. has the nature as an invitation for subscription, and it can be deemed that specific terms and conditions exist that can be performed in the advertisement, etc., or that there has been an agreement between the parties to the contract to the contract to explicitly state the content of the advertisement as the content of the pension insurance contract, such advertising content may be deemed valid as the content of the contract, but if not, it should not be interpreted that the content of the advertisement was included in the content of the contract.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

① The terms and conditions of the instant pension insurance policy or the subscription form for a contract do not stipulate any details related to the collection of old age. ② The details of the instant pension insurance policy do not provide for the qualification for the collection of old age, the period of use, the selection procedures, etc., and even thereafter, it is not prescribed for the minimum methods or standards that can determine the contents thereof. ③ Under the instant pension insurance policy, it is necessary to prepare for a happy old age only to prepare for it. For this reason, the advantages of the instant insurance can be considered as the “defensive old age” with the phrase, and it is difficult for the Defendant to take advantage of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance policy, including the Plaintiffs’ right of preference to the construction of new old age with regard to the benefit of old age, and the content of the instant insurance policy, including the terms and conditions of the instant insurance policy, i.e., the term “long with the term and conditions of the instant insurance policy,” i.e., the remaining life guarantee, i., various benefits of old age,” and the terms and conditions of the instant insurance policy.

However, the fact that the policy has not yet been disclosed to the general public due to the lack of finances in the formulation and preparation stage of internal social welfare policies, and it is difficult to deem that the policy has not been performed due to the failure to perform the obligations under the Pension Insurance Act. 7 It is difficult to say that the revision of the plan to build the house of old age to suspend its implementation by revising it is difficult to say that it is practically possible for the Defendant to grant the right to move into the house of old age in addition to the payment of pension in light of social norms because the financial standing is insufficient to grant welfare benefits to the insured due to the increase rate of policyholders of pension insurance and the realization of the fund that appears in the early stage of the implementation of insurance business.

Examining these facts and circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the content of the instant pension insurance advertisement through a notice or newspaper on the instant pension insurance is merely limited to the nature of solicitation for subscription, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to include the advertising contents related to the right to occupy and use a house in their old age at the time of entering into the instant pension insurance contract, as long as it cannot be seen that the content of the instant pension insurance contract includes the Defendant’s duty to guarantee the right to occupy and use a house in their old age against the Plaintiffs.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the grant of the right to live in the old age was included in the incidental contents of the instant pension insurance contract and recognized the Defendant liable for damages due to nonperformance. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for inclusion in advertisements or interpretation of contracts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiffs’ assertion

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal and the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548