2.O

3.GlaO

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance business operator, Defendant 1 is the wife of Nonparty A (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and Defendant 2.3 is the offspring of the deceased. B. On September 20, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the deceased on the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance”).

C. However, around 14:10 on May 1, 2008 during the insurance period of the instant insurance period, the deceased fell from the floor of the head of the Ban, such as the Taegu-gu New-dong, Daegu-dong-dong (one-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu (one-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, which was placed in the rock wall, using a specialized tool. immediately after the fall, the deceased was transported to the hospital, but was under medical treatment on the face of the hospital, and was eventually killed (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

D. Of the instant insurance terms and conditions, the content pertaining to the instant case is as follows.

- Article 14, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 (damage not compensated)

Unless otherwise agreed, a company shall not compensate for any loss incurred while the insured is engaged in a specialized light (such as misunderstanding of cancer walls or ice walls or requiring special skills, experience, advance training, etc. using professional light equipment) for the purpose of occupation, duties, or club activities.

-Article 25 (Duty to Notify before Contract : the contractor, the insured, or their agents must be informed of the fact that they are aware of the matters asked in the subscription form at the time of subscription.

Article 27 (1) 1 (Effect of Violation of Duty to Notify) Where a contractor, an insured person or his/her agent violates Article 25 (Obligation to Notify before the contract is concluded intentionally or by gross negligence and the obligation falls under important matters, the company may terminate the contract regardless of whether or not the damage has occurred.

- Article 28 (Restriction on Exercise of Right of Contract Cancellation) Company shall not exercise the right of cancellation by fraud in Article 110 (Fraud or Duress) of the Civil Code at the time two years have elapsed without the occurrence of the cause for payment of insurance proceeds from the date of commencing its liability: Provided, That if the contractor or the insured passes the diagnosis procedure by means of acting, taking drugs, or obtaining the diagnosis of cancer or business before the date of its subscription, and if the company proves that the contract has been concluded by obvious fraud, such as hiding and hiding, before the date of its subscription, the contract may be cancelled within five years from the date of commencing its liability (within one month from the date of becoming aware of the fraudulent fact).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8 evidence, Gap 11-1-1-4, witness*, part of the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant accident occurred while the Deceased, the insured, was engaged in specialized class activities for the purpose of occupation, duties, or club activities. Therefore, the damage caused by the instant accident constitutes “damage not compensated” under Article 14(2) subparag. 1 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions. Therefore, there is no obligation to pay the insurance money to the Defendants of the Plaintiff.

2) In addition, the deceased has enjoyed and had been at the level of real force of the cancer walls before the conclusion of the instant insurance contract. Nevertheless, at the time of the preparation of the written application for the instant insurance contract, the deceased expressed as "no" the question of "whether or not the deceased has been repeatedly engaged in a hobby with high risk such as the rocks?" This constitutes not only the case where the deceased's duty to notify the prior contract under Article 25 of the instant insurance contract, but also the case where the contract was concluded by deceiving the plaintiff with an obvious intent to commit fraud. Accordingly, the plaintiff is cancelled or cancelled by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case pursuant to Article 27 (1) 1 or Article 28 of the instant insurance contract.

There is no obligation to pay the insurance money of this case to the Defendants of the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine the claim that the loss caused by the instant accident constitutes damages that occurred during the course of the insured's specialized class activities for the purposes of occupational, occupational, and club activities, in other words, as stipulated in Article 14 (2) 1 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions.

The content of a standardized contract shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of the average customer's understanding potential without considering the intent or specific circumstances of individual parties to the contract. When the content of a standardized contract is not clear or doubtful in terms of customer protection, it shall be limited and interpreted favorably to the customer, in favor of the customer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35226, Oct. 28, 2005).

Based on the above legal principle, I examine the case based on Gap evidence No. 11-4. According to Gap evidence No. 10 and Eul evidence No. 11-5, according to each part of the above evidence No. 11-5, the deceased, at the time of the accident of this case, was a so-called "specialized light team (such as breaking out or ice wall with professional light equipment, or requiring special skills, experience, and advance training)" as stipulated in Article 14 (2) No. 1 of the insurance clauses of this case. However, even according to the above standardized contract terms, if the damage occurred during the professional class, it is not a non-conditionable damage regardless of what is the purpose of the professional class, and it is difficult to view that such specialized class was for the purpose of the insured's occupation, duty, or club activity. However, in light of the above evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 11-3, Gap evidence No. 10, and Gap evidence No. 11-2, the testimony of the deceased's expert class No. 12, etc.

Taking into account only the fact that the purport of the above standardized contract that does not compensate for any loss incurred during the professional class with the aim of occupation, duties, and club activities is significantly high in the case of the professional class where the purpose of the standardized contract is repeated, and thus, it is intended to exclude it from the scope of responsibility.

Even if a member of the club is not a member of the club, it may be deemed that the degree of risk is the same, i.e., in the case of this case where a group of persons who joined the club alone, and where a group of persons who joined the club is engaged in repeated specialized group of persons who do not compensate under the above provision. However, such interpretation is contrary to the principle of interpreting the terms and conditions that should be objectively and uniformly based on an average customer's understanding possibility, even if the purpose of the group of persons who joined the club is not a group of persons who participated in the actual club, and even if they are not a group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons, the purpose of the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons who participated in the group of persons.

In order to clarify the relationship in which case it is not clear to see the subject matter of insurance, it can be deemed that the insured was intended to exclude the subject matter of insurance, regardless of whether it actually participated in the group of club members or not. Therefore, unless the group of club members is formed as part of the activity, it should not be deemed that the non-compensation damage stipulated in the above standardized contract does not constitute the subject matter of insurance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Next, we examine the allegation that the Deceased violated the duty of disclosure or deceiving the Plaintiff by failing to notify the Plaintiff of the violation of the rocks at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract.

To recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, first of all, the deceased’s conclusion of the instant insurance contract ought to be recognized as having been doing so before September 20, 2004. However, it is insufficient to recognize the above fact solely on the basis of each part of the evidence No. 12, 10.12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review of the remaining points.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-sung

Judges Lee Jae-han