1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,339,186 to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 5, 2013 to September 28, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a new insurance contract with the Defendant via B, an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “second insurance contract”), and set the period for payment of the insured and beneficiary’s insurance premium, KRW 780,000 per month, and KRW 20,000 per month. From around that time to July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 14,40,040 to the Defendant as the insurance premium.

B. Around September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance policy II with the Defendant for non-payment, namely, the insured and the beneficiary, the Plaintiff’s insurance premium amounting to KRW 2020,000 per month, and the insurance premium payment period. From around that time to January 5, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,100,000 as the insurance premium to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff 1 and the 2 insurance contracts are variable, which combines variable insurance and universal insurance, and are somewhat dangerous insurance products.

B at the time of concluding the 1 insurance contract and the 2 insurance contract, the Plaintiff violated the obligation to clearly understand and understand the important matters of the insurance contract, such as the content and risk of the insurance, changes in refund for cancellation upon investment return, and the fact that when the cancellation refund is transferred to the amount equivalent to the principal amount of the paid-in insurance premium, a considerable period of time

The plaintiff entered into the first insurance contract and entered into the second insurance contract only for seven months, and around three million won per month.

B solicited the Plaintiff to conclude the 1 insurance contract and the 2 insurance contract, in light of the Plaintiff’s age, investment purpose, property status, experience in investment, etc., violates the suitability principle as an active act of soliciting transactions involving excessive risk.

B-. The defendant