1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' claim to confirm the cancellation of their insurance contracts on August 23, 2011.

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of August 31, 2005, Plaintiff A concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant following the insurance solicitation of E, an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant, as of August 31, 2005:

Insurance Name: the due date for Class B (Standard Body) of the DI insurance without dividends: The insured for life: The plaintiff A, the plaintiff A, and the plaintiff A, and the deceased at the time of death upon maturity/existence.

B. On March 23, 2010, the Plaintiffs changed the contract between the Defendant and the contractor and the beneficiary at the time of maturity of the said insurance contract, and the beneficiary at the time of hospitalization/injury, as Plaintiff B, and the principal insured still changed the contract to Plaintiff A.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”). (C) An insurance contract concluded by amendment.

E terminated the instant insurance contract by computer on August 23, 2011, and received KRW 6,225,024 as insurance refunds, and around that time, the Defendant deemed that the termination of the instant insurance contract was effective, and the instant insurance contract was terminated.

(hereinafter “Cancellation of the instant insurance contract” as of August 23, 2011. 【Grounds for Recognition: (a) the fact that there is no dispute; (b) the entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, B Nos. 2, 3, and 4; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the insurance contract of this case was terminated without authority by E, not the plaintiff B, who is the policyholder, and the defendant did not cancel the insurance contract of this case without authority, and the contract of this case was cancelled without authority. Thus, the termination of the insurance contract of this case is null and void and therefore the insurance contract of this case is valid.

In addition, even if the plaintiffs are authorized to cancel the insurance contract of this case even if they are authorized to cancel the insurance contract of this case, since the insurance contract of this case is for another person, in order to cancel the contract, the plaintiffs must obtain the consent of the plaintiff A or carry the insurance policy in accordance with Articles 649 and 639 of the Commercial Act.