1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation under each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4.

1. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion is unlawful since each of the instant insurance contracts listed in the separate sheet that the Defendant concluded with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”, and each of the instant insurance contracts is specified by the sequence) is normally paid, and all of the instant insurance contracts are effectively maintained, as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant, by means of taking the confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). 2) The plaintiff asserts that the insurance contract of this case 1 and 2 was terminated or invalidated, and that there is no obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant to return premiums under the insurance contract 1 and 2 of this case against the defendant does not exceed the cancellation refund (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 199).

However, the defendant argues that the insurance contract of this case 1 and 2 is effective, and if the plaintiff terminates the insurance contract of this case 1 and 2, the insurance solicitor of each of the above insurance contracts violated the duty to explain to the defendant, and thus the plaintiff is liable to pay damages equivalent to the amount of the insurance premium payable to the defendant. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff has a benefit to confirm that there is no interest in confirming that the liability against the defendant does not exceed the amount of the cancellation refund of the insurance contract of this case 1 and 2.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Next, with respect to the insurance contracts of this case Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant, before the instant lawsuit is filed, was an insurance solicitor with respect to the instant 3 and 4 insurance contracts.