All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal as to the main claim

A. Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act provides that a person’s written consent shall be obtained at the time of concluding an insurance contract covering the death of another person as an insured event. The purpose of the provision is to eliminate the existence of a dispute by clarifying the timing and method of consent. Thus, the consent of the insured person shall be obtained separately in writing for each insurance contract, and it is insufficient to provide a comprehensive, implied, or constructive consent.

In addition, according to Article 731 (1) of the Commercial Act, the time when the insured shall express his/her consent in writing from another person's life insurance contract until the time of conclusion of the insurance contract. This is a mandatory provision and the insurance contract in violation thereof is null and void. Thus, if the insured's written consent is not obtained from the time of conclusion of the insurance contract of another person's life insurance contract, the insurance contract shall be null and void definitely, and even if the insured has ratified

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da56677 Decided September 22, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da74007 Decided February 11, 2010, etc.) B.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant insurance contract was concluded and null and void without the consent of the insured, on the grounds that (1) at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract as indicated in the judgment of the lower court (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”), there was no direct signature of the insured G in the signature column of the insured, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that H was granted the right to written consent from the insured G to the instant insurance contract, and that the instant insurance contract was concluded without the consent of the insured, and thus, rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for the instant insurance money, the beneficiary premised on the validity of the instant insurance

C. The purport of this judgment of the court below is to dispute.