1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 21, 2015 to February 4, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 12, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into the instant insurance contract with the Defendant, the insured B, and the beneficiary as the Plaintiff’s non-dividend integrated insurance I (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The main contents of the said insurance contract and its terms are as stated in the attached terms and conditions, and the insurance proceeds, etc. are required to be paid within three business days from the date of receipt of the insurance claim.

B. Meanwhile, around November 26, 2010, around 00:55, which was within the above insurance period, B was placed in the emergency room located in the Busan Jin-gu D Hospital due to the symptoms of food lowering and paralysis, etc., and was performed an emergency operation at the East Asia University Hospital located in the same day on the same day as the result of the inspection was found to have been found to have blood transfusions.

C. B, even after the above surgery, there seems to be a disability such as the right-hand paralysis, flady, etc. caused by cerebral surgery, and was diagnosed at the Busan National University Hospital on June 5, 2015. The rate of disability payment due to a new boundary disorder caused by cerebral surgery calculated according to the insurance contract of this case is 65%, and the remaining rate of disability payment due to each part of the body is the same as the final disability rate in the attached Table No. 1, and all of the above parts of each part of the body are derived from the above new boundary disorder.

On the other hand, on August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract, filed a claim with the Defendant for insurance proceeds based on the special agreement and the special agreement for guaranteeing non-distribution and high-speed disability as seen earlier on the ground that the disability payment rate of B is more than 80%. However, the Defendant:

A. (2) A refused to pay insurance money on the grounds as alleged in paragraph (2). [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's entries in No. 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 12 and 13, Eul's evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the insurance contract of this case as seen earlier by the Plaintiff’s assertion, other physical parts caused by new boundary disorder are assessed as the pertinent disability, and the highest payment rate is assessed as the said disability.