1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,078,788 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from April 14, 2015 to February 9, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s mother C stated the amount of KRW 50,00 in the insurance policy of KRW 250,000 as the insured amount from April 16, 2010 to October 18, 2030, with the Plaintiff’s insured status as C and the Plaintiff’s mother as the insured amount, and KRW 250,000 in the amount of the bodily injury and loss medical expenses (hereinafter “injury and loss medical expenses”). However, the Defendant recognized KRW 250,000 as the insured amount; therefore, the Defendant’s mother is accordingly governed;

The insurance contract was concluded with the amount of comprehensive hospitalization loss medical expenses (hereinafter referred to as "injury hospitalization expenses") 50,000,000.

(hereinafter referred to as the insurance of this case).

On June 22, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered 2 parts, 2, 3, and 3 degrees image (3Do image 21%) of physical surface 46% in both sides, 3, and 3, 46% in both sides, 2, and 3.

(hereinafter referred to as "the injury of this case"). / [The grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 3, and 2-1 to 3

2. The assertion;

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s injury in this case’s injury, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the expenses for hospitalization and injury inflicted by the Plaintiff under the insurance contract of this case, which calculated by deducting the total of KRW 10,594,90,90 for purchasing the expenses for Boperic medicine as stated in attached Table 1 through 4, the total of KRW 4,005,60 for the expenses for painic medicine treatment, the total of KRW 3,432,350 for the expenses for rehabilitation treatment of the G hospital, the total of KRW 6,595,220 for the medical care of the H hospital, the total of KRW 24,628,070 for the medical care of the H hospital, and damages for delay as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the insurance contract of this case is limited to medical care benefits or non-medical care benefits under the National Health Insurance Act (or the Medical Care Assistance Act) and the National Health Insurance Act (or the Medical Care Assistance Act). Of the Plaintiff’s claim items, the costs of purchasing universal therapy are not for the purpose of treatment but for the purpose of beauty, and does not fall under any one of the above two items, and the costs of health care for skin rehabilitation are not for the purpose of treatment for the purpose of skin therapy.