1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In March 2012, Defendant C and D, an employee of Defendant Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), engaged in insurance business, etc., recommended the Plaintiff to subscribe to an amount-variable pension insurance policy (hereinafter “instant insurance”) with a 10-year payment period run by Defendant Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Life”) and KRW 50 million monthly payment amount.

B. On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant Samsung Bio-resources, the Plaintiff as the contractor, and the Plaintiff’s representative E as the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). From March 28, 2012 to June 2013, the Plaintiff paid the insurance premium of KRW 50 million and KRW 800 million in total.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, each entry of Eul evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F and G testimony, part of the testimony of the plaintiff representative director Eul, the result of the plaintiff representative director's personal examination, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant C and D committed an illegal act in the course of soliciting insurance and entering into an insurance contract as follows, and obstructed the Plaintiff’s termination of the contract of this case. Although Defendant C and D’s termination of the insurance contract of this case due to the foregoing act, the Plaintiff was granted refund of KRW 460,326,087, out of KRW 800,000,000, the amount of KRW 339,673,913 was incurred.

1) Defendant C and D urged the Plaintiff to arrange a loan of KRW 4 billion in the event that they subscribed to the instant insurance contract. Defendant C and D, even though they did not qualify for soliciting variable insurance contracts, solicited the instant insurance contract using the name of “H”, the representative director of Defendant B, even though they did not qualify for soliciting variable insurance contracts.

3. Although the instant insurance is a variable insurance product with a high risk of the loss of principal, Defendant C and D did not provide the Plaintiff with a detailed explanation of the instant insurance, and did not deliver an insurance policy.