보험금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) each of the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the result of physical examination of Seoul Hospital annexed to the Macheon-do University,” which read “the result of physical examination of the Seoul Hospital annexed to the Macheon-do University,” and the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court is as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for the addition of “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or added to the Seoul Hospital annexed to the Macheon-do University. Thus,
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) In the ordinary insurance clause of the insurance contract claiming that an accident is not intentional, the insurer is responsible to prove the facts constituting the above reasons for exemption in order for the insurer to be exempted from liability for the payment of insurance money. In this case, the existence of objective physical evidence, such as a statement of intent to commit suicide, or the fact of obvious surrounding circumstances as much as reasonable doubt about the possibility of not committing suicide in ordinary public, should be proved. In this case, the fact that the plaintiff was on board the vehicle driven under the influence of alcohol and brought about a dispute over the expressway while the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, the plaintiff's attempt to commit suicide or self-harm on the expressway cannot be seen as clearly proven. Rather, according to the statement of B, the plaintiff did not attempt suicide, and there was no improper purpose such as the acquisition of insurance money. 2) Even if the plaintiff intentionally did not know that he could not make a free decision due to mental disorder, etc., he did not know that there was a conflict between the plaintiff and the other person under the influence of alcohol.