In recent case (2006Da17539), the Korean supreme court judged about a duty to explain the significant matters of contract and the principle of confirmity in variable universal life insurance contract. The supreme court support the decision of Seoul high court (2009Na 97606 decided March 31, 2010) partly. In this case the supreme court decision agree with the breach of the duty of explain of insurance solicitor. But in applying principle of confirmity, the supreme court reversed a judgement of the original court and remanded the case to the original court for future developing. Currently, this case is pending in original court. Above all, supreme court allowed comparative negligence in formation of insurance contract. The writer have been comment the high court`s decision in Vol. 385 of Monthly Life Insurance published by Korea Life Insurance Association. The writer rewrote the comment since the supreme court`s decision is differ from high court`s decision in some important points. The decision of the supreme court is particularly significant because it clarified that when deciding the tort liability of the insurance company it is possible to comparative negligence at court`s discretion. The supreme court emphasize that the principle of conformity should be prudentially applied. New Insurance business act of 2010 art.95-3 provide the Principle of Conformity and limit the scope of the insurance products governed by above article is prescribed by Presidential Decree. Variable insurance included the example of investment product have to apply the conformity rule. Also, Insurance business act art.95-4 provide the duty of explain to apply all insurance business include variable insurance. And Enforcement decree of the insurance business act newly insert art.42-3 (Matters to Confirm, etc. under Principle of Conformity) in 2011. The decree describe the standard of judgement on the conformity in detail. Those are age of the policyholder; monthly income and the share of insurance premium disbursement in the monthly income ; purpose of purchasing the insurance ; whether the policyholder has an amount-variable insurance contract or has purchased collective investment securities under Article 9 (21) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act. Above matters deemed necessary for recommendation of the conclusion of an insurance contract suitable to the policyholder. The original court shall render a judgement. The factual and legal findings, which has been regarded by the court of final appeal as the ground of reversal, shall be binding. And the original court shall review the circumstance evidence consider the intent of above statutes.