1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,456,218 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from September 20, 2017 to December 12, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 2005, through an insurance solicitor B, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for “the policyholder and the insured, the Plaintiff, the beneficiary’s life and hospitalization, the Plaintiff’s legal heir at the time of death, the insurance coverage amount of KRW 100 million, the monthly insurance premium of KRW 77,700 (the main insurance premium is KRW 727,650, and the remainder is the insurance premium according to the selective contract such as traffic accident death and accident medical care), the insurance period life, and the insurance premium payment period of KRW 10,00,00 (the insurance premium according to the selective contract such as traffic accident death and accident medical care)” (the securities number: C; hereinafter “instant insurance”). From then to November 2007, the Plaintiff paid all monthly insurance premium for up to two years until December 2007, but only some of the monthly insurance premium was paid up to 40,80,312 won.

B. Meanwhile, following the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 6,800,00 in total, including KRW 400,000 on May 9, 2013 and KRW 400,000 on March 28, 2014, and KRW 1,400,000 on May 26, 2015, and KRW 400,000 on August 18, 2015, and KRW 40,000 on January 25, 2016, KRW 40,000 on December 21, 2016, and KRW 6,80,000 on April 21, 2017, and KRW 10,000 on September 10, 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of the instant insurance contract, B, an insurance solicitor at the time of the instant insurance contract, merely explained to the Plaintiff that the monthly substitute premium paid to the Plaintiff during the two-year period of compulsory payment, and did not explain important matters, such as the fact that the monthly substitute premium is withdrawn from the cancellation refund, the basis for calculating the cancellation refund, and the withdrawal of the monthly substitute premium, may terminate the insurance contract if the cancellation refund becomes small due to the cancellation refund.

Therefore, the insurance contract of this case is null and void, and the violation of B's duty to explain constitutes a tort, so the defendant paid to the plaintiff in accordance with unjust enrichment or Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act.