1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the accidents described in paragraph 2 of the attached list, it is listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list.

1. The reasons why this Court's explanation concerning this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the “caturology” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in the form of “caturology”; (b) the “Defendant” in the second part and the “Plaintiff” in the second part and the “Plaintiff” in the fifth part and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding “the Plaintiff, December 30, 2009” in the second part and “the Plaintiff, December 30, 2009.”

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Defendant’s caturology does not fall under one of the seven major diseases stipulated in the insurance clause of this case, and the Defendant’s caturology cathoology e14, which is surgery for treating cathoology urology urology urology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology eurology e.g., the Defendant’s urology eurology eurology eurology eurology e.

2) Even if the surgery against the Defendant constitutes 7 major diseases as stipulated in the instant insurance clause, the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance based on the instant insurance contract has expired. B) In determining whether the statute of limitations has expired, the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance benefits has expired unless it is exercised for two years under Article 62 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 12397, Mar. 11, 2014).

However, the defendant performed an operation on November 27, 2009 on the premise of glass body and claimed insurance proceeds to the plaintiff on December 22, 2009, and on December 30, 2009, the fact that the plaintiff refused to pay the surgery expenses, etc. on the ground of the refusal on December 30, 2009 and paid only the expenses for hospital hospital treatment, hospital hospital treatment expenses, hospital hospital treatment expenses, and hospital allowance for disease, etc. to the defendant on December 30, 2009 is identical to or without dispute between the parties.