The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The plaintiff's total costs of litigation.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The policyholder has the right to change the beneficiary.

(Article 733(1) of the Commercial Act. The right to change an insurance beneficiary is a right to form, and a policyholder may freely exercise the right without the consent of the insurer or the beneficiary, and the change becomes effective immediately by the exercise of the right.

However, the policyholder may not oppose the insurer unless he has given notice to the insurer after changing the beneficiary.

In light of the legal nature of the right to change the beneficiary and the interpretation of the Commercial Act, the change of the beneficiary is reasonable to deem that the change of the beneficiary is a sole act without the other party. As long as the expression of intention of change of the beneficiary is objectively confirmed, the change of the beneficiary occurs even if such expression of intention did not reach the insurer or the beneficiary.

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the beneficiary changed from the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the premise that the Deceased expressed to the Defendant his intent to change the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract objectively.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, around December 2, 2016, the beneficiary was changed from the Defendant to the Plaintiff due to the exercise of the right of change of the beneficiary of the Deceased, and on October 8, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the instant insurance claim upon the death of the Deceased. As such, there is no legal interest to seek for the Defendant to obtain the transfer of the instant insurance claim and the implementation of the procedures for notification of transfer.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is illegal because there is no benefit of lawsuit.