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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) suicide committed intentionally and intentionally cutting his/her own life, and thus, “the insured’s death result has been caused without free decision-making due to mental illness, etc.” is a contingency accident and does not constitute a disaster, and it does not constitute an intentional injury to himself/herself. 2) In the case of the Deceased, the instant accident occurred due to a sudden act while suffering from depression due to external factors, such as change of his/her duties and the death of his/her relative. As such, the deceased’s death constitutes a disaster death as stipulated in the instant insurance contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the agreed death benefit to the plaintiff who is a beneficiary.

B. Defendant 1) The instant insurance clause provides for “the case where the insured intentionally injures himself” as the grounds for exemption of the insurer. Thus, “suicide” under the language of the instant insurance clause is interpreted to be excluded from the subject of insurance coverage, and as alleged by the Plaintiff, it goes beyond the scope of statutory interpretation of the instant insurance clause in a case where the insured commits suicide in a situation where he is unable to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc.” and thus, is unreasonable. (2) The purpose of the instant insurance clause separately prescribes “the case where the insured died in a situation where he is unable to make a free decision due to mental disease, etc.” as the grounds for exemption of the insurer. This does not fall under the ground for exemption of the insurer, but is only the case where it