1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was a person who operated a restaurant at the time of Pakistan, and Nonparty B was an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant Company.

B. On February 16, 201, upon B’s solicitation, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract regarding “non-dividend PlusUP pension insurance” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) which is a variable insurance product of the Defendant Company.

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). C.

From February 16, 201 to April 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 1,482,000 monthly insurance premium to the Defendant over 63 times, and the total insurance premium that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant was KRW 93,36,00 (= KRW 1,482,000 x 63).

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could find the principal and interest after five years from the date of the insurance contract from the insurance solicitor B, and sought payment of principal and interest from the Defendant Company (the date on which the Plaintiff received a civil petition to the Defendant regularly). The Defendant refunded KRW 93,366,00 to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2016 on the ground of “the termination of a civil petition” (the date on which the Plaintiff received a civil petition to the Defendant).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff sought the cancellation of an insurance contract due to mistake or fraud and the return of unjust enrichment, and the Plaintiff sought to subscribe to an installment savings-type product whose principal is guaranteed for five years. However, as the Plaintiff wants, the instant variable insurance product, which is a performance-based dividend product whose principal is not guaranteed at all, is in violation of Articles 95-2 and 97(1) of the Insurance Business Act, and without explaining the content of the product differently from the fact and without explaining the important content of the insurance product, the Plaintiff made the Plaintiff enter into the instant insurance contract.

B made it possible for the Plaintiff to conclude the instant insurance contract by deceiving the Plaintiff, which is the core content of the instant insurance contract.