1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion is a contractor of each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet, who is the plaintiff's husband, designated the insured and the beneficiary as D. Since D was designated as a guardian of D inasmuch as the plaintiff was in the course of being hospitalized in a state where it is not possible to make a daily life due to the present illness, the defendants are obligated to change the name of the beneficiary from D to the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff

2. Article 733(1) of the Commercial Act provides that a policyholder has the right to designate or change a beneficiary. Articles 734(2) and 731(1) of the Commercial Act provide that a policyholder shall obtain the written consent of the insured at the time of designation or change of the beneficiary in the case of an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event. Such mandatory provision provides that the consent of the insured shall be obtained individually in writing for each insurance contract, and it is insufficient to provide a comprehensive consent, implied, or constructive consent.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da204178, Oct. 15, 2015). According to each of the following items: (a) each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet is an insurance contract covering the death of the insured D; (b) in order to change the beneficiary, the written consent of D, the insured, must be obtained; (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the consent of D was obtained; and (d) it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s guardian or D’s daily life was consented in the written consent of D, the insured. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal.