1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the deceased’s spouse of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”). Plaintiff B as the deceased’s child, the Plaintiffs are the legal heir of the deceased.

Insurance coverage coverage amount (cost) non-dividend Alus Guarantee Insurance, 1304. from September 13, 2013 to September 13, 2028 from September 13, 2013 to September 13, 2028, 40,000 Alphus Guarantee Insurance, 1501 to March 31, 2083, death by injury 200,000,000

B. The Plaintiff, as the Deceased, concluded each of the following insurance contracts with the Defendant with the beneficiary of death insurance as a statutory heir (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) with the Defendant as the deceased.

C. All of the terms and conditions of each of the instant insurance contracts stipulate that “the insured intentionally injures himself/herself” shall be exempted from the payment of insurance proceeds, and that “if the insured damages himself/herself under a condition that he/she is unable to make a free decision due to mental disorder, etc.” the insurance proceeds shall be paid, and they shall be excluded from the exemption

At around 20:30 on July 31, 2016, the Deceased died of the heart stop, external shock, d apartment d apartment 304 Dong 1202 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from a small room window located in the first floor of the apartment of this case, and died due to a divers of the heart, external shock, divers, divers, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion is that at the time of the accident of this case, the deceased did not commit suicide but attempted to damage his mobile phone, and was crashed due to lack of recognition ability, and thus, it does not constitute "a case of damaging himself by intention," which is the exemption from each insurance contract of this case, and therefore, the defendant does not constitute "a case of damaging himself by intention," which is the exemption from each insurance contract of this case.