A. On February 27, 2016, the Defendant and the insured E, and the insurance period from February 27, 2016 to February 27, 2017: (a) entered into an insurance contract of “bbb data group accident insurance” with the Defendant, the insured E, and the insurance period; (b)

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). (b)

The insurance contract and its terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case stipulate that the defendant shall pay 200 million won of the injury death insurance to the insured in the event that the insured died as a result of his personal injury caused by a sudden and unexpected accident.

C. On April 26, 2016, E died of the same accident as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant accident”) around 09:15.

(hereinafter referred to as “E”) d.

Plaintiff

A is the deceased's wife, and the children of the deceased are the defendants B, C, and D.

On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of insurance proceeds due to the instant accident.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition】 Each entry in Gap evidence 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. "A contingency accident" among the requirements of an insurance accident covered by a judgment-based insurance contract on the cause of a claim means an accident caused by an unforeseeable cause, not intentional but unexpected cause, which means an accident caused by a contingency and resulting in an unforeseeable result in ordinary process. An accident occurring out of the country means an accident caused by external factors, not due to a physical defect of the insured, i.e., a disease or physical physical injury, etc.

There is a burden of proof on the claimant for insurance in relation to the causal relationship between the contingency, ex post facto nature of such accident and the result of injury or death.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da6857 Decided May 13, 2010, etc. In light of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as a whole, and the purport of the whole pleadings, ①.