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

A. On March 29, 2013, the mother of the deceased B entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant “Family Love Insurance Plus” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the term “Defendant B, the beneficiary of death benefit, the beneficiary of death benefit, the beneficiary of death benefit, the beneficiary himself, from March 29, 2013 to March 29, 2096, and from March 29, 2016 in the case of general injury death, and KRW 90 million in the case of general injury death.”

B. On August 29, 2013, B (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) caused a collision with a car passing through the said intersection by making a left turn while driving in violation of the luminous professor apartment, the front-distance intersection at the Young-gu, Young-gu, Suwon-si and the signal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed insurance money of KRW 90 million to the Defendant on the ground of the deceased’s death. D.

On March 13, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant insurance contract was terminated in accordance with Article 652 of the Commercial Act and Article 26 of the General Terms and Conditions of the instant insurance contract (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions”) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s breach of its duty to notify the change in risk.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased died of the instant accident constitutes a general injury death stipulated in the instant insurance contract, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 90 million according to the instant insurance contract.

B. 1) Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “The insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event shall obtain the written consent of the other person at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract,” and the said provision is null and void as a mandatory law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37084, Nov. 12, 1996). The entry of the evidence 3-1 and the witness C.