1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”). The Defendants, as the parents of the deceased, inherited the deceased’s property in one-half shares, respectively.

B. On September 24, 2014, around 03:38, the Deceased died after being administered to the Han River near the point of the midest observation for the Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu.

The direct death is presumed to be the following: (a) the instant accident is deemed to be the next death (hereinafter “instant accident”).

According to the instant insurance contract, in the event that the insured was physically injured during the period of a special agreement and died as a result of his/her direct performance due to a sudden and remote accident, the total amount of the injury death insurance amount shall be paid KRW 90 million. Article 18 of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract provides that “A company shall not be covered by insurance money when any of the following causes occurs due to the failure to pay the insurance money.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5, Eul 3, and 11 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims on both sides;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the insured's intentional accident is a non-compensation damage under the pertinent standardized contract. The accident of this case constitutes a reason for exemption since it was caused by the deceased's intentional act, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the death benefit due to the death of the deceased to the Defendants.

B. The Defendants asserted that they drink more alcoholic beverages than ordinary alcoholic beverages at the time of the instant accident.