A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) stated the name of the deceased as “G”, but according to the description of the family relation certificate attached to the party’s appointment submitted by the Defendant (Appointed Party), it is apparent that it is a clerical error in “B”.

On April 5, 2013, C entered into a contract with the deceased and the insurance period from April 5, 2013 to April 5, 2052, which covers the general injury death insurance amount of KRW 100,000,000 (1304).

(Attached 3. Insurance Contract, hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”). (b)

around 09:40 on February 12, 2014, the Deceased died of the head from the elderly center located in Incheon Strengthening-gun D, the head of which was frighted from the drainage route.

(Attached 2 List of Insurance Accidents). (c)

The Defendant (Appointed Party, hereinafter “Defendant”) is the wife of the Deceased, and the Appointed Party E and F claimed KRW 100,000,000 for the general injury death benefit under the instant insurance contract against the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased died due to the cause of injury is not proven. As such, the Plaintiff is not obliged to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant and the designated parties. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the deceased died due to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased died due to the cause of injury. As such, it is obvious that the deceased died due to the death of the deceased, since the deceased died due to the cause of injury.

Therefore, the Plaintiff should pay KRW 100,000,000 on the basis of the instant insurance contract to the Defendant and the designated parties.

B. Of the “emergency and contingency accidents,” which are the requirements of insurance accidents stipulated in the insurance clause of the sales-related legal doctrine.