1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

2...

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "Selectively, at the time of entering into the contract of this case, the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case by hearing explanation that "the principal shall be guaranteed for two years" from the defendant B at the time of entering into the contract of this case, and the contract of this case was cancelled by filing a civil petition with the defendant company with the knowledge that the principal shall not be guaranteed after two years from May 3, 2012. The defendants are obligated to return the amount claimed as unjust enrichment."B, in the same section 22, there is no error about the important part of the legal act, and even if there is family error, there is no gross negligence of the plaintiff, and even if there is a family error, the plaintiff did not legally exercise the right of revocation."On the other hand, the defendants did not exercise the right of revocation as long as they acknowledged liability for damages due to unjust enrichment under Article 750 or Article 102 (1) of the Insurance Business Act.

(C) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to revoke the contract of this case, and by exceeding the legal principles as to the right to revoke the contract of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to revoke the contract of this case. In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to revoke the contract of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

2. On the other hand, in concluding the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff also has the structure, characteristics, risks, etc. of the variable insurance.