Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Roex, Attorneys Yoon-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

E. E. E. E. International Roster (Attorney Jeong-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 27, 2015

1. The plaintiff 1 confirms that the plaintiff 1 is in the position of each contractor of the pension insurance as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and the plaintiff 2 is in the separate sheet No. 2.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2012, the deceased Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) subscribed to each pension insurance as indicated in [Attachment 1] and (2) of the Defendant’s Schedule 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant 1 pension insurance” and “instant 2 pension insurance” in common name.

B. Each of the instant pension insurance is the insurance that pays a certain amount of monthly pension (for the instant pension insurance, KRW 2 million before and after the date of death, KRW 1.5 million in the case of the instant pension insurance, and KRW 70 million in the case of the instant pension insurance) to the deceased upon his survival, and that pays to the legal heir at the time of his death the amount of KRW 70 million (in the case of the instant pension insurance) or KRW 50 million in the case of the instant pension insurance (in the case of the instant pension insurance contract, KRW 2 million in the case of the instant pension insurance).

C. The Deceased paid to the Defendant KRW 694,60,000 as the first pension premium of this case, and KRW 496,600,000 as the second pension premium of this case.

D. On September 27, 2013 at the request of the Deceased, a notarial deed containing the following (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

The ○○ Deceased, contained in the main text, designated Plaintiff 1 as the executor of the will. The ○○ Deceased, who was a member of the Defendant, bequeathed the “Undividended Pension Insurance Money” to the Plaintiff 1. The ○○ Deceased, who was a member of the Defendant, bequeathed to the Plaintiff 1: (Insurance Policy; (3) the Life Insurance Policy; and (4) the immediate pension insurance and insurance policy number: (4) the Plaintiff 1: the Insured, who was a member of the Defendant, testamentary to the Plaintiff 2 the “Undividended Pension Insurance Money” that he/she subscribed to the Defendant.

E. On February 2, 2014, the Deceased died, and his heir is Nonparty 2, his spouse, and Nonparty 6 (Supplementary Intervenor: Assistant Intervenor), Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Plaintiffs, and Nonparty 5.

F. After the death of the Deceased, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to change the contractor of each of the instant pension insurance to the Plaintiffs. However, the Defendant rejected the legacy subject to the instant testamentary gift based on the instant pension insurance rather than the status of each of the instant pension insurance or its contractual status. From March 2014, the Defendant paid a certain amount of the pension amount paid to the Plaintiffs from March 2014, as the relevant pension insurance amount, to the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The subject of the testamentary gift made to the plaintiffs according to the testamentary gift of this case (hereinafter “instant testamentary gift”) is each of the pension insurance contracts of this case, and the other inheritors of the deceased did not raise any objection thereto. Accordingly, as the plaintiffs are the policyholders of each of the pension insurance of this case according to the testamentary gift of the deceased, they seek confirmation.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The testamentary deed should be strictly interpreted. According to the text of the testamentary deed of this case, the subject of the testamentary gift of this case is not the subject of each of the instant pension insurance contracts, but only the pension insurance money accordingly. In addition, each of the instant pension insurance contracts upon the death of the deceased was jointly inherited by the deceased, including the plaintiffs, and each of the instant pension insurance contracts requires the defendant to accept the change of the contractor in the terms of each of the instant pension insurance contracts. As such, upon the application for change of the contractor by all co-inheritors or the application for change of the contractor with the consent of other co-inheritors, the Defendant

3. Determination

(a) Objects of legacy;

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the subject of the legacy of this case is the status of each pension insurance contract of this case as the subject of each pension insurance of this case.

① Although the instant testamentary document stated “pension insurance money” as the subject of testamentary gift, at the bottom of the document, the “insurance policy, pension insurance, insurance policy number, and insured” concerning each of the instant pension insurance is written in detail, and the copy of each of the instant pension insurance policies is attached as it is.

② According to the contents of each of the instant pension insurance, when the deceased is alive based on the insurance premium paid in lump sum by the deceased, the deceased would receive a certain amount of the monthly pension, and the deceased would receive a death benefit at the time of the death of the plaintiffs, and the deceased would receive a death benefit at the time of termination of the contract. As such, the right to each of the instant pension insurance has the deceased or the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, who bequeathed to each of the insured, has the intent to

③ If the status of each of the instant pension insurance contracts, as alleged by the Defendant, belongs to the deceased’s heir, and only the insurance money under each of the instant pension insurance belongs to the Plaintiffs, the insurance money under each of the instant pension insurance is paid to the Plaintiffs or the Plaintiffs’ statutory heir. In the event the deceased’s heir terminates each of the instant pension insurance contracts, the termination refund money would be divided into the deceased’s heir. This would result in a change in the ownership of rights under each of the instant pension insurance contracts before and after the deceased’s death, and is inconsistent with the deceased’s intent to make the legacy

④ Nonparty 6, who was excluded from testamentary gift based on the testamentary gift of this case, filed a claim for an adjudication on division of inherited property on the premise that each of the pension insurance of this case belongs to the Plaintiffs.

B. Whether testamentary gifts are performed

1) In the case of a testamentary gift, a property subject to the testamentary gift shall be an inherited property and a person who receives the testamentary gift shall merely acquire a claim to perform the testamentary gift against (1) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da73445, May 27, 2003; 2007Da22859, Dec. 23, 2010). Meanwhile, a testator may designate an executor by will (see, e.g., Article 1093 of the Civil Act), and in the case of the appointment of a designated executor, it is necessary to consider a notification or acceptance to the inheritor (Article 1097(1) and (3) of the Civil Act). An executor by designation shall be a representative of the inheritor (Article 1103(1) of the Civil Act).

2) As seen earlier, Plaintiff 1 was designated as an executor according to the deceased’s will. In light of the fact that the ownership transfer registration based on testamentary gift regarding part of the real estate among the property subject to testamentary gift based on the testamentary gift document of this case was completed, Plaintiff 1 appears to have consented to the designation of the executor. Therefore, the status of each pension insurance of this case, which is the subject property of the testamentary gift of this case, was reverted to the deceased’s co-inheritors, and the designated executor was demanded by Plaintiff 1 against the Defendant to change each of the pension policyholders of this case, thereby performing the testamentary gift of this case.

C. The defendant's consent needs

Article 6 of the terms and conditions of each pension insurance of this case is defined as follows with respect to the amendment of the terms and conditions.

He may change the following matters with the approval of the company. In this case, he shall notify the consent in writing or enter it in the back of the insurance policy (certificate of insurance coverage). 1. 2. 3. 3. Other contract terms and conditions of the basic insurance premium. In this case, the contractor may change the beneficiary, and in this case, the beneficiary may not set up against the company with his right unless the contractor notifies the company of the change of the beneficiary. 3. If the contractor wishes to reduce the basic insurance premium pursuant to paragraph 1(1) 1, he shall be deemed to have terminated the reduced portion (limited to the life-long sentence of inheritance), and if the company intends to pay the termination refund, he shall pay it to the contractor pursuant to Article 16(1). 4.

According to the above provision, unlike the change of the beneficiary, the change of the contractor requires the defendant's consent to the change of the contractor is due to the change of the contractor's contractual status. However, in the event that the contractual status of each of the instant pension insurance is transferred to a specific person as it is due to a specific legacy as in the instant case, the defendant's contractual status cannot be deemed to have been changed disadvantageously. In such a case, even if the defendant's consent is required, if the status of the contractor can be changed only when the defendant's consent is obtained, it would be limited to disposal of the deceased's private property and freedom of will, and this part of the standardized contract shall be deemed null and void as a clause unfairly unfavorable to the

Therefore, prior to the status of each of the instant pension insurance contracts based on the instant legacy, the Defendant’s consent cannot be deemed necessary.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, the status of the first pension insurance contract of this case was transferred to Plaintiff 1, and the legacy of this case, which transferred the status of the second pension insurance contract of this case to Plaintiff 2, was performed by Plaintiff 1, a designated executor, and the consent of the defendant was not required before the above contract status was concluded. As such, Plaintiff 1 is in the position of the first pension insurance of this case and the second pension insurance of this case, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation as long as the defendant contests this.

4. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.

[Attachment]

Judges Yoon Jin-gu (Presiding Judge)