1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

The summary of the case is the case where: (a) the insurance solicitor of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and the head of the branch office, who is an insurance agency, entices the Plaintiff to pay the insurance premium of KRW 40 million for 24 months on behalf of the Plaintiff; and (b) concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant C&C Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”); (c) thereby causing damage equivalent to the difference between the total insurance premium of KRW 398,40,000 and the termination refund of KRW 263,131,012 up to 24 times, the Plaintiff is liable for tort or employer liability of the Defendant B pursuant to Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act; and (d) the Defendant C&C is liable for damages by an insurance company pursuant to Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act.

In fact, Defendant UP, an insurance company related to the Defendants, concluded an insurance contract with Defendant B, an independent selling company of financial products, and delegated such business as brokerage of conclusion of insurance contracts.

On August 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with Defendant C, an insurance solicitor belonging to Defendant B, and entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff, the insured D, monthly insurance premium of KRW 16.6 million, insurance premium payment period, and insurance period, and the non-dividend PPC link’s subscription amount of KRW 830 million (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

Until July 2011, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 398,400,000 as monthly insurance premium under the above insurance contract, and the termination refund that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive at the time of termination of the insurance contract is KRW 263,131,012.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, and whether liability for damages due to violation of duty to explain the whole purport of the pleadings (Dispute 1) is established due to unfair inducement (Dispute 2).