A. The Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff as the insured and entered into each of the insurance contracts listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) with the Plaintiff as the insured.

B. On October 24, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the occurrence of the insurance accident and the Defendant’s claim for the payment of insurance proceeds of the insurance accident were caused by the same accident as indicated in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant accident”) and that the aftermath of the escape certificate guaranteed by the terms and conditions of each of the instant insurance contracts remains. The Defendant claimed payment of the insurance proceeds of the subsequent disability to the Plaintiff. On December 31, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident had a disability to his/her own integrity due to the instant accident, and claimed payment of the insurance proceeds of the subsequent disability.

C. The terms and conditions of each of the instant insurance contracts with respect to the harm to oil shall be as listed in the separate terms and conditions in attached Form 3.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the assertion of the parties to the whole pleadings

A. It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s assertion caused the harm to the Defendant due to the instant accident, and there is no obligation to pay the Defendant’s “vertebrate, etc. disability” or “ear disability” among the special terms and conditions of each of the instant insurance contracts against the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the defendant was diagnosed of a small number of verteblick escape from spine and a protruding disability in spine due to the instant accident, and therefore the plaintiff is obligated to pay insurance proceeds under each insurance contract of this case.

Judgment

A. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the plaintiff asserts that the cause of the right is denied, the defendant who is the right holder is the requirement of the right relationship.