1. The part concerning the claim for nullification of the contract in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an insurance contract, such as the attached list 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract,” and collectively referred to as “each of the instant insurance contracts”).

B. The Defendant received KRW 15 million each of the insurance proceeds under each of the insurance contracts of this case on the ground that the Defendant had been negligent in C in net City B three times as shown in the attached Table 2 as shown in the attached Table 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the legitimacy of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of a contract is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions relating to the present rights or legal status, even in the past legal relations, if it is affected by the present rights or legal status, and it is deemed that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations is an effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions relating to the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36407 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). The fact that the instant Type 1 insurance contract was terminated on December 18, 2012 and October 17, 2013 is no dispute between the parties. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading in the evidence No. 4, the instant Type 3 insurance contract is paid only once in case of an neglected number of persons. As long as the Defendant already received the insurance money with neglected number of persons, the part related to the neglected number of persons dissatisfied with the Plaintiff lost its validity, it is difficult to view that whether each of the instant contracts was invalidated before it had been invalidated or not, affects the current right or legal status.

However, even if this is affected by the defendant's obligation to return the insurance money received from the plaintiff, it shall be as in this case.