1. On May 26, 2013, the Defendant, at the seaside located in Yong-do, Incheon, would get out of the tideland.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant concluded two insurance contracts as shown in the separate sheet with the Plaintiff.

B. On May 26, 2013, the Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the payment of the insurance proceeds of the residual disability, alleging that the Defendant sustained the injury of the tideland escape from the tideland because the tideland was lowered out of the tideland in order to catch boom from the seaside located in the territory of the Incheon Yong-do.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 11; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where the perpetrator asserts that the subsequent disability of the victim's assertion was caused by king, the perpetrator's assertion is the denial of the causal relationship under the litigation law, and therefore, the victim's affirmative causal relationship exists between the accident and the injury in question.

shall be proved that there was no post-explosive disability due to or passive evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da80778 delivered on September 4, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 99Da2171 delivered on May 11, 1999). In light of the records as follows: (a) Doctrine, Gap evidence 6, 7, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, 9, and 10; and (b) 1 through 7, Eul evidence 2, 3-2, and Eul evidence 4 on the part of the defendant's assertion of the above accident, in the light of the result of physical examination as to the head of Kansan Hospital at the Kansan University at this court; and (c) 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1-2, 2, and Eul evidence 4 on the part of the defendant's assertion.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's protruding escape certificate is not by the king, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, in relation to the above accident alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the insurance proceeds for the follow-up disability under each insurance contract entered in the separate sheet. As long as the defendant claims payment against the plaintiff, there is a legal interest to seek confirmation that the plaintiff has no obligation to pay insurance proceeds against the defendant

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.