1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,850,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 14, 2010 to November 30, 2016, and the following.

1. In full view of the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a provisional number) as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is liable to pay damages and delay damages to the plaintiff as described in Paragraph (1) unless there are special circumstances, since it is acknowledged that the defendant had been properly hospitalized between October 4, 2006 and June 7, 2010 (based on the date on which the claim for insurance proceeds was filed) by deceiving the employee in charge of the plaintiff, thereby deceiving the employee in charge of the plaintiff as if he had been duly hospitalized.

2. The Defendant asserts that “The extinctive prescription has expired since three years have elapsed since the Defendant was prosecuted.”

"Date of knowing the damage and the perpetrator" in Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of calculating the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when actual and specific recognition of the facts constituting the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relation between the harmful act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7577, May 27, 2010). Each of the items stated in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 1 cannot be deemed as having actually and specifically recognized the facts constituting the tort of this case when the defendant was prosecuted by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.