1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs concluded the following insurance contracts through the insurance solicitor J of the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) and paid the insurance premium. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, each of the instant insurance contracts, as of the date of closing argument, becomes null and void due to the Plaintiffs’ no longer paying the insurance premium.

A K M B CDD M N L L L L L H L LO

B. The rest of the Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff E, did not sign the contract of each of the instant insurance contracts, product description, suitability diagnosis, and the contractor’s confirmation document on the subscription to the obstructed land refund-type goods (the Plaintiff signed only on the subscription document), and the J, entrusted by the said Plaintiffs, copied the written body of the said Plaintiffs.

C. After entering into each of the instant insurance contracts, the Plaintiffs received calls from Defendant Call Center Counselors to verify whether the insurance products were incomplete sold. At the time, the Plaintiffs sought an explanation of the important matters of each of the instant insurance contracts, signed, and received the subscription, product description, and terms and conditions.

[Reasons for Recognition]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment: An insurance solicitor J explained that each of the instant insurance contracts is a guarantee insurance and the principal is not available at the time of termination, and that it is a savings product whose interest is high and whose principal is guaranteed at the time of termination.

The plaintiffs concluded each of the above insurance contracts in error without hearing accurate explanations from J. Thus, they cancel it by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and seek the return of the premium already paid as unjust enrichment.

(2) Claim for damages: The Defendant is liable for breach of duty to explain by the J under Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act; thus, the Plaintiffs seek damages equivalent to the premiums paid by the Plaintiffs.

(b) breach of explanation;