beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) and paid insurance proceeds as follows:
Type of insurance: C Securities No. : Insurance period on October 30, 2006: From October 30, 2006 to October 30, 2026: A beneficiary of A: The coverage content of A (legal heir in cases of death): When the first cancer diagnosis is confirmed after the date of commencing cancer guarantee (the high-amount treatment cost-related cancer: 80 million won).
B. As to the payment of cancer insurance money under the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, Section 14(5) of Sub-Section 3 of the instant insurance contract provides, “The determination of cancer must be made by a person with a professional doctor’s license for autopsy pathology or clinical pathology, and this diagnosis shall be based on the present opinion on tissue examination, scarcity smoking examination, or blood examination. However, the foregoing provision provides, “If scarcityological diagnosis is not possible, the clinical diagnosis of cancer shall be admitted as evidence of cancer.” In this case, there is a document evidencing that the insured is receiving the diagnosis or treatment by cancer.”
C. On June 17, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) at the E Hospital on the occurrence of an insurance accident and the Defendant’s refusal of the payment of insurance proceeds, was brain salvous and brain salvine d32; (b) on September 17, 2014, at the Hahbuk University Hospital, the Plaintiff was in a state where the Plaintiff was unable to completely remove the remaining salvous and salpical salpical d32 from the Hah University Hospital on the second salpical salpical and salpical salpical salpical salpical salpical salpical salpical salpical salpicals.
The Plaintiff again received a radiation operation at the F Hospital five times from January 5, 2015 to January 9, 2015 due to treatment for the remaining species.
After that, the plaintiff on September 2017 according to the insurance contract of this case.