1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to the accidents described in paragraph 2 of the attached list, it is listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list.

1. The court's reasoning in this part is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is cited under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i.e., the deceased will receive a honorarium of five million won, and the deceased will lend his name to a third party at the time of the registration of the instant vehicle to provide it to a so-called substitute vehicle, and thus, it was not actually purchased or possessed.

Therefore, the deceased did not have any insurable interest in the insurance contract of this case because he did not have any operational control and operational profit on the automobile of this case, and cannot be deemed as the named insured, and even if he had the intent to conclude the insurance contract at the time of its conclusion, the insurance contract of this case is null and void, and as long as the deceased did not occupy the automobile of this case from the beginning, it shall not

See The defendant's claim for insurance money has expired by prescription.

B. (i) Article 662 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 12397, Mar. 11, 2014) provides, “The right to claim the insurance amount and the right to claim the return of the premium or the right to claim the return of the premium from an enemy shall be two years, and the right to claim the premium shall be extinguished if it is not exercised for one year.

The instant accident occurred on February 10, 2013.

After the lapse of two years from February 19, 2016, it is evident that the Defendant responded to the instant lawsuit and actively asserted the right.

Therefore, the defendant's claim for insurance money was extinguished by prescription.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

B. The defendant argues that the plaintiff's claim for the extinction of prescription is contrary to the good faith principle.

In this case, after investigating whether the Plaintiff constitutes the cause for the payment of insurance proceeds, the Plaintiff refused the payment of insurance proceeds on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute an insured incident, and the circumstances for which the statute

(b).