1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

The plaintiff asserted as follows and filed a lawsuit against the defendant 2014da87840, which sought insurance money of KRW 10 million and damages for delay.

“The Plaintiff is the beneficiary of the “Haro Regular Insurance” (hereinafter “instant insurance”) that was entered into between B and the Defendant as the insured on November 9, 2006. C committed suicide on August 13, 2014, which constitutes a case where the Plaintiff died on the direct ground of a general accident under the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract. Although the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff a general death benefit, the Defendant paid only KRW 10 million of the general death benefit, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of the insurance benefit after deducting it to the Plaintiff and the delay damages.”

B. On May 22, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff appealed against this judgment and appealed as 2015Na32626, but this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 22, 2015.

The judgment subject to review was served on the Plaintiff on December 23, 2015, and became final and conclusive on January 7, 2016 because the Plaintiff did not appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. The judgment subject to a review is interpreted under Article 15(1)1 of the Terms and Conditions of the instant insurance contract, which states that “If the insured commits suicide after the lapse of two years from the date of the insurance contract, the insurer shall not be exempted.” Thus, even if the death accident of C constitutes suicide after the lapse of two years from the date of the insurance contract, it shall not be deemed as falling under “general accident” according to the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, whereas the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da24347 Decided May 12, 2016, which ruled that “Seo Life Insurance Co., Ltd. shall not be deemed as non-payment.”