1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the “new seeds health insurance” with the Plaintiff’s children B (C) and the beneficiary for the Plaintiff and the beneficiary for the insurance premium payment period of 10 years, and the insurance period of the insured as of 18 years.

B. On June 13, 2013, after the term of the above insurance expires, the Plaintiff’s mother filed an application with the Defendant for payment of KRW 4,207,959 of the maturity refund of the above insurance, and registered the foreign exchange bank account under the Plaintiff’s name with the account to receive remittance of the said money.

C. The Defendant’s employees confirmed the family relation certificate and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression (it was issued directly by the Plaintiff on June 13, 2013) presented by D, and the Defendant remitted KRW 4,207,959 to the account in the name of the said Plaintiff on June 14, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant shall pay the maturity refund of the instant insurance to the Plaintiff to Nonparty D and did not pay it to the Plaintiff up to now. As such, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,207,959, the amount of maturity refund and delay damages therefor.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence Gap evidence No. 1-2, where a third party, other than a policyholder or beneficiary, applies for the refund of the maturity insurance proceeds on behalf of a contractor, etc., the defendant must have the contractor's "(beneficiary)" column affixed his/her seal imprint, and although his/her agent should have the seal imprint the contractor's seal impression, it is recognized that the insurance proceeds of this case were paid without following such procedures.

The defendant asserts to the effect that D is a legitimate agent of the plaintiff or at least the expression agent of the plaintiff (Article 126 of the Civil Code).

However, only the circumstance alleged by the defendant is that D has the power of representation.