1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract between the Defendant and the Defendant, via B, an insurance solicitor of the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s wife C (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

(1) Insurance name: Insurance name: D insurance period: (3) from April 13, 2009 to April 13, 2060:

B. From the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract to April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 2,314,000 (hereinafter “instant insurance premium”) more than 13 times in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The insured’s written consent should be obtained at the time of entering into a contract that covers the death of another person’s assertion as an insured event. The instant insurance contract is an insurance accident against C’s death. Since it did not obtain C’s written consent at the time of entering into the contract, it is null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to return the instant insurance premium to the Plaintiff in unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's written consent was given at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with.

3. An insurance contract, the judgment of which is the death of another person as an insured event, shall obtain the consent of the insured at the time of conclusion of the contract, and the insurance contract concluded in violation of the mandatory provisions

(See Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act, Supreme Court Decision 96Da37084 delivered on November 22, 1996, etc.). According to the above facts, the insurance contract of this case is an insurance accident of the death of C, which is the insured.