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

A. On December 18, 2004, the Plaintiff designated the insured with Nonparty B as the Defendant and entered into an in-paid 1.2.3 Drivers Insurance Contract (V) with the same content as the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. Article 14, 16, and 17 of the General Terms and Conditions of the instant insurance contract (Article 1, 3, and 4 of the General Terms and Conditions on Security for Access to Traffic Injury by Drivers) provides that an amount calculated by multiplying the payment rate prescribed in the attached Table 2 of the Terms and Conditions by the insurance amount shall be paid to the insured as the insurance amount for subsequent disability in the event that the physical injury was caused by a sudden and remote accident (traffic accident) and the physical damage was lost within one year from the date of the accident, or the function was lost permanently, or the function was lost permanently. According to the payment rate table of the latter disability in [Attachment Table 2], the amount of 10% of the insurance amount shall be paid as the insurance amount for subsequent disability with respect to the “horizontal signboards escape certificate of the Gyeongdo”, and the above provision defines the “horizontal escape certificate of the Gyeongdo” as follows:

C. On August 8, 2013, the Defendant suffered from an injury, such as a traffic accident (e.g., a traffic accident listed in the attached Table 2; hereinafter “instant accident”) on the national highways located on the Docheon-gu Docheon-gu Docheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-do, and due to its shock, the Defendant suffered from the injury of conical signboards escape certificate No. 2-3 (hereinafter “instant injury”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the suspension of disability insurance money stipulated in the instant insurance contract is paid only to “permanent disability,” and the Defendant’s injury in this case is deemed to be “Korea Market,” which is only two years of loss of function, and thus, it cannot be deemed to be subject to the above suspension of disability insurance money, and thus, the Defendant’s objection.