Today, private insurance is a type of compulsory savings, and it plays a very important role in securing policy holders' retirement. However, there are many cases of disputes between policy holders and insurers. Disputes relating to recent pension-type immediate-pension products are one such example. There are various disputes over the interpretation of insurance contracts. One of them is whether it is possible to make an assertion if the content prescribed by insurance policy is more favorable to the policyholder than the content specified in the contract. In general, insurance policies are evidence securities. Therefore, since the standard insurance clauses regulates the contents of the contract and the insurance policy is merely evidence, it is necessary to apply the terms and conditions when insurance policy is deployed. It is also questionable whether the contents of the insurance policy can be recognized even if it is damaged. If the contents of the insurance policy differ from those of the contract, it is recognized as an individual agreement and it can be applied first. However, in the case of the Supreme Court case, the insurer alleged that one side of the insurance policy had fallen off, and that there was favorable content for the policy contractor in the case, and the concrete evidence could not be submitted. In other words, the portion of the insurance policy that appears to be beneficial to the claimant has not been verified as to whether it can be stated that this is merely an example. If there is a possibility that the damaged part of the document may be confused with the remaining part of the document and the whole document can not be convinced that the purpose of the document is consistent with the claim of the party who submitted the document, the disadvantage should go to the party of delivery. In such cases, it is difficult to apply the principle of individual agreement priorities. In the case of the individual contract-first principle, the claimant is liable for proof that a separate agreement exists. It is dangerous to arbitrarily recognize the blank part in case of damage of insurance policy. This is because the claimant deliberately undermines and abuses the insurance policy. If, in the end, an important part of the contract was explained in this case, the conclusion that the Supreme Court did not approve the claim of the policyholder is reasonable. In the case of Germany, the likelihood of individual agreements being established through insurance policies is acknowledged, but the burden proof lies to the arguer. The presence of the visible part of the insurance policy would have been beneficial to the claimant, but it could be stated that the amount of the pension could change according to the interest rate, The disadvantage of submitting evidence must be borne by the person submitting the damaged evidence. Individual agreements can be established sufficiently by insurance policy. However, the claimant must prove that there is a separate agreement. However, if the evidence presented as evidence is damaged, the disadvantages resulting from it will be witnessed by the evidence submitter. Therefore, it is necessary to keep important documents such as a copy of the insurance subscription or the insurance policy in relation to the insurance contract properly and to prepare for the submission of the evidence at a later date.