1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, except for a further judgment as to the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion as to the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion, and the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of paragraph (2) where the judgment on the plaintiff's claim for confirmation

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that each insurance contract of the two and three of the instant Articles 2 and 3 covers the loss incurred by a man in a man during the golf game.

However, the Defendant received insurance proceeds of KRW 10,00,000 exceeding KRW 8,803,230 according to the number of neglected persons by submitting a receipt that does not meet the requirements for the payment of insurance proceeds (hereinafter “false receipt”) to the Plaintiff, and obtained the benefit equivalent to the difference without any legal ground.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 1,196,770 won and damages for delay.

B. (1) Determination is that an insurance contract between a policyholder and a beneficiary for another person is a type of contract for a third party.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da204178, Oct. 15, 2015). In a case where a contract constituting a legal relationship between an abortion and a summary offender is invalidated or rescinded in a contractual relationship with such third party, the liquidation of such contractual relationship shall be performed between the abortion contractual party and the summary offender. Barring any special circumstance, even if the abortion had already been provided with benefit to a third party, the abortion may not seek the return thereof against the third party on the ground of unjust enrichment based on the invalidation, etc. of the contract.

(1) In light of the basic principles of contract law, the parties to a contract cannot transfer the risk burden under a contract that is concluded with their own responsibility to a third party, other than the parties to the contract. In light of the basic principles of contract law, etc., the foregoing is deemed as follows.