The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On May 29, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded each of the following insurance contracts with the insured through Defendant Company’s insurance designer C (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”). From May 2012 to November 1, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1DF [securities No. G] 865,200 (main insurance: 665,000) 2 A [Securities No. : I] 610,200 (main insurance: 524,000) 3 EF [Securities No. 278,60 (J] 278,600 (main insurance: 121,000) as insurance premiums for the said three insurance contracts from May 2012 to November 1, 2018.

The Plaintiff terminated each of the insurance products of this case around November 29, 2018 and was refunded KRW 38,827,099.

[Grounds for recognition] The insurance contract on each of the insurance products of this case as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire argument is invalid for the following reasons in violation of the mandatory provisions under the Insurance Business Act.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the plaintiff's purchase of the above insurance products.

Each insurance contract of this case in breach of the duty to explain is an amount life insurance with a change in risk of loss of principal, and the defendant, in entering into an insurance contract with the plaintiff, has invested part of the premiums into the fund and may incur loss to principal. Each of the above insurance products may require a considerable period of time until the principal is preserved as the products re-investment in derivatives, etc., and shall explain the fact that the contract maintenance costs and risk premiums, the amount of insurance proceeds or the amount of the insurance proceeds or the amount of the cancellation refund may decrease during the suspension period, but did not explain the above contents.

This is in violation of the duty to explain stipulated in Article 95-2 of the Insurance Business Act.

The defendant in violation of the suitability principle is closely aware of the contractor's age, financial status, purpose of subscription, investment tendency, etc. in advance when soliciting subscription to variable insurance.