1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 201, through C, the Defendant’s insurance solicitor, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant, setting the insured amount of KRW 700,000,000, insurance period of KRW 10 years, monthly insurance premium of KRW 3,423,00 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. From March 10, 201 to September 14, 2011, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 22,567,842 on seven occasions.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was explained by C, an insurance solicitor of the Defendant, that “the principal of the insurance premium paid regardless of the paid-in installments may be refunded if the period of five years has elapsed after the insurance contract was concluded,” and concluded the instant insurance contract with the knowledge that it guarantees the principal of the insurance contract.

Therefore, since the plaintiff cancels the insurance contract of this case by mistake, the defendant is obligated to return the insurance premium of 22,567,842 to the plaintiff.

B. In light of the judgment, the statement No. 4 alone stated that C is guaranteed to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had concluded the instant insurance contract by mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant has experience in purchasing variable insurance prior to the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, and the defendant can recognize the fact that he has signed the variable insurance main contents in a written explanation letter stating that "this insurance contract may cause losses to principal in accordance with the absence of minimum guarantee rate." Thus, the defendant was well aware that the insurance contract of this case is variable insurance, not savings insurance, and thus the principal is not guaranteed.