1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases:

2. The part to be cut off - the part to be cut off - the part to be "the defendant" in the 5th page 4 and 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be cut down to "A".

- Parts 3, 15, 4, and 9 of the first instance judgment shall be completed as follows.

An insurance company or insurance solicitation worker has the duty to protect customers so that customers can reasonably determine whether to conclude an insurance contract based on information, by clearly explaining not only the payment of premiums, grounds for paying insurance proceeds or refunds for termination of insurance proceeds, and standards for calculating the amount, but also the important matters of insurance contracts that may know the characteristics and risks of individual insurance products, such as investment types and structures, in the case of an amount-variable insurance contract.

However, whether an insurance company or insurance solicitation worker is required to explain to a customer a certain degree of the important matters of insurance contracts should be determined by considering the characteristics and risk level of insurance products, experience and understanding ability of the customer, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da22242 Decided October 27, 2014). Meanwhile, Article 97(1)1 of the Insurance Business Act provides that no person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts shall inform a policyholder or the insured of the details of the insurance contract differently from the facts or notify the insured of the important matters. As such, where damages are claimed pursuant to Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act on the ground of a violation of the aforementioned provision, the burden of proving such violation is on the part of claiming compensation for damages.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da39192 Decided November 25, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health stand in this case and the facts acknowledged earlier and Article 3.