2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

【Supplementary Parts] The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has already been completed, and that the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription does not go against the good faith principle, since the non-determination of adjudication on disappearance against the deceased does not constitute a legal obstacle to the exercise of the right to claim the insurance proceeds of this case.

The facts that a request for adjudication of disappearance against the deceased was dismissed on the ground that the report of death against the deceased is consistent with the substantive relationship are as seen earlier. According to the evidence No. 4-3 and No. 17, the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case concluded between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant are as follows: “In the event that the insured is declared missing because it is not clear whether the life or death of the insured,” the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case shall be deemed to have died. However, if it is recognized by a government agency as deceased on the ground of a cause or accident corresponding to Article 27(2) of the Civil Act, such as the sinking of the ship, the fall of the aircraft, etc., and if it is entered in the family register

However, according to the above evidence, it is also acknowledged that the death diagnosis report is required to be attached at the time of insurance claim (Article 26). In light of this, it is difficult to view that the basic certificate alone was able to claim insurance money. The plaintiffs' report of death and the basic certificate of the deceased were dead beyond the deceased's death, and it is also deemed that the government agency's report of death was included in the family register according to the government office's report of death.