1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a life insurance contract with the Defendant for non-distribution (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) and paid an insurance premium of KRW 18,684,640 in total on 52 occasions from May 30, 206 to May 30, 2006.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff’s name and signature are written in writing, along with the content of the contract “the name of the goods, subscription amount, premiums, payment period, insurance period, etc.,” and the content of “the said subscription to the said contents after being informed of the main contents of the terms and conditions.” Article 17 of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract provides that “the cancellation refund paid upon the termination of the contract shall be calculated in accordance with the calculation method of insurance premiums

C. On June 22, 2006, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant insurance contract, repaid the principal and interest of the insurance loan to the Defendant, and received KRW 484,446 as a refund for cancellation.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff did not have any explanation on the main contents of the instant insurance from the Defendant’s recruiters at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and was paid only KRW 11,685,00 (i.e., total paid-in premium amounting to KRW 18,685,000, KRW 7 million) at the time of the cancellation of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff received only KRW 484,446.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund the above-paid premium to the plaintiff 11,685,000 won and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s recruitment member did not violate the duty to explain at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, and the statute of limitations expired even if the Plaintiff had the right to claim the return of the premium.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff violated the duty to explain.