1. Defendant B shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 80,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 14, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. Indication of Claim: In addition, the part as to Defendant B in the “Cause of Claim” is indicated.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that Defendant B, who served as the insurance solicitor (FC) of the Defendant Company C branch of the Defendant Company, deceiving the Plaintiff from October 16, 2015 to August 17, 2016, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff totaling KRW 170 million. The Defendant Company, as an insurance company, shall not only be liable for damages inflicted on the Plaintiff as the policyholder while soliciting the insurance, but also be liable for the employer’s failure to properly supervise the Defendant B, who is an employee.

B. Article 102(1) of the Insurance Business Act provides that “an insurance company shall be liable for any damage inflicted on its executives, employees, insurance solicitors or insurance agencies (including insurance solicitors belonging to the insurance agencies) in the course of soliciting.”

This provision is a special provision applicable in preference to Article 756 of the Civil Code, which is the general provision on the employer's liability for damages. In order to recognize liability for damages under this provision, even if the insurance solicitor's solicitation act is not itself, it shall meet the requirements to the extent that it appears to fall within the scope of the solicitation act, as objectively related to or similar to the insurance solicitor's original solicitation act, from objectively viewing the external observation of the conduct

(1) Article 756(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The employer shall be liable when the employee inflicts loss on a third party with respect to the execution of duties that the employee works under the employer’s instruction.” In such a case, the employee’s tort is objectively apparent to be recognized.