1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff concluded the following insurance contracts with the Defendant Company (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) upon the introduction of Defendant B and Defendant C, the head of Defendant Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), as the head of Defendant Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

1) The date of a contract for Newwfol No. 2.0 (Undistribution): The insured on February 14, 2013: E (the Plaintiff’s representative director): E (injury) and the heir (Death): 2,828,000 won (payment period 10 years) monthly; 2,828,000 won (payment period 10 years): the date of a contract for WIP-specific de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto (Undistribution) insurance: The insured on January 31, 2013: F (the Plaintiff’s inside director and E’s spouse): F (Bodi), F (Bodi), 070,000 won (Death 10 years): monthly, 3,070,000 (Death 10 years).

B. When the Plaintiff came to know that it was impossible to treat each of the above insurance premiums as losses in the process of filing corporate tax and income tax returns in 2013, the Plaintiff terminated each of the instant insurance contracts on February 21, 2014 and returned KRW 12,918,426 ( = 5,583,356 won, KRW 7,335,070) upon cancellation refund from the Defendant Company.

Insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff at the time of termination is KRW 69,294,578 ( = 32,125,674 won).

【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2, and Eul evidence 3

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although it is impossible to treat losses of the paid-in premiums under each of the instant insurance contracts, Defendant B and C unfairly solicited the Plaintiff to conclude a contract by explaining that it can be treated as losses, and the Plaintiff concluded each of the instant insurance contracts with trust and trusting the Plaintiff. 2) Unlike general cases where Defendants B and C made the contractor and the beneficiary as a corporation at the time of concluding each of the instant insurance contracts, it did not explain to the Plaintiff as a corporation, as to the difference and long as the contractor is the beneficiary, the difference and long point in the event the beneficiary is a corporation, and the change of the canceled Refund in accordance with the return on investment, or whether the cancelled refund is required

3. The plaintiff is the defendant B and .