1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, different from the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, was presented in the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is decided to accept it by the main text of Article 420

In the court of the first instance, the Plaintiff appeared as a witness of C in the prior criminal trial against B, and the Prosecutor of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office prosecuted a fine of KRW 500,000,000,00, the judgment in the prior criminal trial is likely to be employed. ② On June 23, 2011, the revocation of entitlement to a disability pension was revoked through the decision of the National Pension Review Committee on February 4, 2014, and the National Pension Review Committee decided to recognize the degree of disability caused by the disability of B as class 3 on the same day. The above written judgment was not submitted in the prior civil trial, and it was not determined in that judgment, and thus, the judgment of the prior civil trial was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

According to Gap evidence No. 29-1, the prosecutor of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office filed a non-prosecution disposition in the case where Eul filed a complaint with Eul with perjury as perjury, and the prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office filed a complaint to this effect, and the prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office dismissed the suspicion of perjury related to the treatment of the hospital of this case on the ground that C's appeal has no merit, and it is recognized that the prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office made a decision to issue a second investigation order only with respect to the

According to the above facts, it can be seen that the facts charged with the summary indictment against C are irrelevant to the claim for return of the insurance premium of this case and the claim for insurance money.