1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a bus transport business and the Defendant B company (hereinafter “Defendant company”) is a company running insurance business, etc., and the Defendant C was an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant company, and the Defendant D was a certified public accountant, who was in charge of accounting audit of the Plaintiff company, and is in friendship with E, the representative director of the Plaintiff company.

B. The Plaintiff concluded each insurance contract (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) with Defendant C as the insured between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company on the date and time indicated in the table below.

The name of each insurance of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each insurance of this case").

F. F. 1 F. 25,000,000 won 2 F. 40,000 on October 4, 2013, 2013, the monthly insurance premium of 1 F. 25,000 per contract number G 25,000

C. However, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Company to terminate each of the instant insurance contracts. On January 25, 2018, the Defendant Company paid KRW 3,471,516,75 to the Plaintiff as the refund for termination of each of the instant insurance contracts. The said refund amount is less than the total insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff, which is less than KRW 177,883,245.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant D and C subscribed to each insurance of the instant case to the Plaintiff side would have tax benefits related to retirement allowances of the representative director, and upon soliciting the subscription, the Plaintiff concluded each of the instant insurance contracts.

However, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company made an interim settlement of retirement pay around 2008 and, in such a case, there was no tax benefit even if the Plaintiff subscribed to each insurance of this case. Defendant D and C knowingly do not explain such fact to the Plaintiff and solicited the purchase of each insurance of this case without properly explaining it. As such, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to conclude the insurance contract of this case constitutes an expression of intent by fraud.

In addition, the Plaintiff is each insurance of this case.