1. The Plaintiff’s policyholder A, the insured B, and the insurance period against the Defendant from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The F agency, as a selective distribution agency belonging to the Defendant, whose jurisdiction covers three pages, including Asan City C, D, and E, and whose selective distribution capacity is smaller than that of other agencies, and the person who conducts selective distribution business relatively small, was challenged. Around February 2013, the person who operates the said F agency was vacant, and the Defendant was carrying out the delivery business by inserting a vehicle which needs more cost than the agency at the time.

Under the above circumstances, G, the husband of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) started a door-to-door assignment service from February 2013 to the above F agency from February 2013. However, G, after ascertaining the actual circumstances of the above region, decided whether to conclude an agency contract, and began a door-to-door assignment service without preparing a contract for the agency contract with the Defendant and the agent.

B. After March 2013, employees belonging to the Defendant delivered to G an agency contract (a contracting party is the Defendant and the Intervenor) signed with the Defendant’s representative director’s official seal on March 11, 2013. However, G rejected the signing of the contract, stating that the agency business environment, such as the volume, amount, and fees, does not reach the expectation.

C. While G was operating a F agency without preparing an agency contract as above, in April 2013, G demanded Defendant G to conclude a guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff during April 2013, and the Intervenor, who is the wife of G, expressed his/her intent to subscribe for a guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the liability for damages arising from the consignment of door-to-door assignment services that may arise in the course of operating a door-to-door dispatch agency on April 23, 2013.

Since then, the supplementary intervenor was involved in the insurance contract of this case.