The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant “C” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) and received KRW 184,347 on March 14, 2017, when only the insurance premium was paid up to January 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues that: (a) the Plaintiff did not receive the terms and conditions at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract; (b) did not hear the specification and explanation of the terms and conditions; and (c) the instant insurance contract was concluded with the knowledge that it is an installment savings; and (b) the instant insurance contract is unlawful as it constitutes invalidation or cancellation; and (c) the Plaintiff

B. Determination 1) We examine the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion. Rather, the Defendant’s signature exists, and according to this, it is recognized that the Defendant’s insurance solicitor D explained the main contents of the instant insurance and delivered the insurance clause. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. 2) Even if the instant insurance contract is null and void as the Plaintiff’s assertion on household affairs, the extinctive prescription expires unless it is exercised for three years (Article 62 of the Commercial Act), and the right to claim the return of premiums paid under an invalid insurance contract can be exercised when it is paid, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the return of premiums runs from the time of paying each premium, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da92612 Decided March 24, 2011). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff paid the premium on January 201, 2015, and the Plaintiff finally paid the premium on which three years have passed thereafter. As such, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of the premium was clearly apparent.