1. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion D is a person who operates a restaurant by lending the Plaintiff’s name, and the Plaintiff’s personal obligation may bring about compulsory execution, and thus, the Plaintiff demanded to change the policy holder and the beneficiary of each insurance contract No. 1 or No. 4 from the Plaintiff to the name of D.

On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff changed the name of the policyholder and the beneficiary into D, and the insurance contract was terminated as it did not pay the insurance premium thereafter, and the cancellation refund of each insurance contract as stated in the attached Form reaches approximately KRW 70 million.

In order to receive this, the Plaintiff demanded that the name of the beneficiary registered in the name of D be changed in the name of the Plaintiff. However, D demanded that the Plaintiff change the name of the beneficiary, and it refuses to pay the price for the change of the name of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is necessary to confirm that the genuine policyholders and beneficiaries of the insurance contracts listed in the annexed Nos. 1 through 3, and the true policyholders and beneficiaries of the insurance contracts listed in the annexed No. 4 that were subscribed to the Defendant C Co., Ltd., are the Plaintiff. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is obligated to change the policyholders and beneficiaries of the insurance contracts listed in the annexed Nos. 1 through 3 as the Plaintiff at the time of maturity and life, and Defendant C Co., Ltd is obligated to change the beneficiaries of the insurance contracts listed in

2. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation is permitted where there is a benefit to immediately confirm the existence of the obligation between the parties to the dispute as to the present rights or legal relations, and it is unlawful as there is no legal benefit, since it does not have any particular effectiveness in removing unstable and it cannot be a valid and appropriate means in light of the litigation economy

Supreme Court Decision 91Da6757 delivered on July 23, 1991