2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On October 7, 2010, Plaintiff B entered into a contract with the Defendant and the Insured, the parent of C, and the Plaintiffs, the insurance period from October 7, 2010 to October 7, 2095, with the term “non-dividend Samsung F&M health partnership insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance”).

Plaintiff

B, in addition to the basic contract that receives 50 million won at the time of the death of the insured, in addition to the basic contract that receives 50 million won at the time of the death of the insured, subscribed to the special agreement on death (70 years

B. At around 02:00 on March 30, 2013, C (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) injected in Eelcom located in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, and committed suicide by avoiding smoke in guest rooms.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the insurance contract of this case is null and void in accordance with Article 732 of the Commercial Act, which invalidates the insurance contract of this case as an insured accident, since the deceased was physically and mentally weak at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract.

According to the results of the entrustment of the appraisal of medical records to the head of the Macheon National University Seoul Hospital, according to the order to submit documents to the National Health Insurance Corporation, the deceased was treated due to the symptoms of excessive behavioral disorder (ADDD) from August 2005. However, in 2010, there was no special improvement of symptoms in 2010. In February 3, 2013 immediately before the accident, the fact that the deceased was treated with depression by the day immediately before the accident is recognized.

However, such circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the deceased was a mentally and physically weak person at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the insurance contract of this case is null and void is rejected.

3. The Plaintiffs, as to the Defendant’s exemption, seek for payment of insurance money of KRW 100 million according to the instant insurance contract on the grounds that the insured event, which is the death of the Deceased

Article 17(1) of the General Terms and Conditions of the instant insurance.