1. The part against Defendant B and C, which exceeds the following order of payment, shall be revoked:

1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), together with the overall purport of the pleadings, unless otherwise specified:

The Plaintiff, an insurance business entity, entered into each insurance contract with F and Defendant C as listed below, and each contract provides that all damages incurred by the insured’s intentional act shall not be compensated.

On July 13, 2000 from July 13, 2000 to July 13, 2015 from July 13, 2000 to June 28, 2005, such as the Non-Distribution Universal Loss Insurance 0505 to June 28, 2005 from June 28, 2005, such as the Long-term Loss Guarantee Insurance for the Long-Term Loss for the Loss of Distribution, the Death of Defendant CF on June 28, 2020.

B. At around 18:30 on June 20, 201, F, the insured of each of the above insurance contracts, died from the falling from the bend floor from 101, 201, G Apartment-gu, Seojin-gu, Seoul to the first floor (hereinafter “the instant insurance accident”). Accordingly, Defendant B and C, the child of the net F (hereinafter “the deceased”). were co-inheritors.

(each 1/2 equity). (c)

On the other hand, Defendant A was married on April 1, 1993 between Defendant B and C and the Deceased, but divorced on August 25, 1998, and thereafter Defendant D and the Deceased.

Defendant A, as the legal representative of Defendant B and C, was a minor at the time of November 2011, claimed insurance money if the deceased died due to an accident. On June 27, 2012, Defendant A received total of KRW 169,957,940 from the Plaintiff as insurance money under each insurance contract of this case.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) the deceased died in his house beera, and the damage therefrom is caused by the deceased's intentional act, who is the insured under the grounds for exemption under each insurance contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff did not have a duty to compensate for the damage.

(2) Nevertheless.