1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs incurred after the appeal are filed by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the determination of dismissal and supplement as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(except for the part against Co-Defendant B, for which a decision of recommending reconciliation has become final and conclusive in the trial). [Attachment] of the first instance judgment, the Defendant Company, in the first instance judgment, runs from the fourth to fourth, as follows:

“Pursuant to Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act and Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 50,409,942 as stated in the purport of the claim, which deducts the money deposited by the Defendant from the insurance premium deposited to the F Bank account from the Plaintiff’s account in relation to the insurance contract Nos. 1 through 14, and from the insurance premium deposited to the Defendant from the Industrial Bank of Korea’s account, etc., the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 16,601,218 as compensation for damages, and the delay damages therefrom.

2. According to the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages pursuant to Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act and Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act, as asserted by the Plaintiff, according to the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire arguments in subparagraphs 15 through 18 and 2 and 5 (including each number number).

Even based on the Plaintiff’s statement at the investigative agency, B terminated the insurance contract Nos. 1, 2 with the Plaintiff’s consent and newly concluded the insurance contract Nos. 5, 6.

Even if an insurance solicitor's act appears to fall within the scope of solicitation, if the victim knew or was not aware by gross negligence that the act does not constitute solicitation, the insurance solicitor's act is in accordance with Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act.