The case dismissing a claim for the payment of insurance money on the ground that it does not constitute malicious life, which is a ground for the payment of insurance money under the policy of cancer insurance.

In cancer insurance contracts, the case dismissing a claim for the payment of insurance for the self-employed 0 cancer on the ground that it does not fall under the category of cancer (medical standard disease classification) which is a ground for the payment of insurance money under the insurance contract, and merely constitutes the category of thothothal cancer which is a new life in the upper part, as a whole stage of malicious life.

Article 105 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Young-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Japan Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Dog-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 96Na10727 delivered on April 25, 1997

Supreme Court Order 97Da19465 Delivered on July 9, 1997

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,800,000 won with an interest of 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a judgment of provisional execution shall be sentenced.

1. Basic facts

On April 25, 1995, the Plaintiff and the insured on April 25, 1995. By April 25, 2015, the insurance coverage amount was KRW 20,000,000 under the prime contract, KRW 20,000 under the special agreement for non-payment of dividends; KRW 29,000 under the special agreement for non-payment of dividends each month, KRW 1,200, KRW 100 under the special agreement for non-payment of damages; KRW 10,000 under the special agreement for non-payment of damages; KRW 30,000 under the special agreement for non-payment of damages; KRW 9,00 under the special agreement for non-payment of damages; KRW 9,00 under the special agreement for non-payment of damages; KRW 10,00 under the special agreement for non-payment of damages; KRW 9,00 under the special agreement for non-payment of damages; KRW 10,000 under the special agreement for non-payment of cancer death;

(Evidence: Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, testimony of stuffing a witness, inquiry and reply by the head of the KaTol University Slive Hospital)

2. Issues;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 15,800,000 to the Plaintiff total sum of KRW 10,000,000 for cancer diagnosis benefit insurance, KRW 4,00,00 for cancer surgery insurance, and KRW 15,80,00 for cancer hospitalization benefit for 9 days pursuant to the provisions of the insurance contract.

B. Defendant’s assertion

In regard to this, according to the terms and conditions of the above new living cancer insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's claim is groundless since the plaintiff was diagnosed and treated as the self-finite 0 cancer, which is excluded from the subject of insurance payment.

(c) Markets:

Therefore, as to whether the plaintiff's 0-Mymal marcium 1 to 6, respectively, and as to whether the 10-Mymal marcium 1 to 6, considering the overall purport of oral arguments as to whether the above 10-Mymal marcium 1 to 4 was included in the above insurance contract, the 10-Mymal marcium 1 to 6-Mymalmcium 1 to 4, as well as the 10-Mymalmal 1 to 6-Mymalmalmal marcium 1 to 4, as well as the 17-Mymalmalmalmal marcium 1 to 4, the 9-Mymalmal mymalmal marcium 1 to be included in the 6-Mymalmalmal marcide 1 to 173.

According to the above facts, the self-employed 0 cancer, which occurred and was hospitalized after the occurrence of the plaintiff, does not correspond to cancer (al standard disease classification) which is a ground for the payment of insurance money under the above insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and should be deemed to fall under the same as the same as the same as the same as that of the same in the upper part of the old part of the old part of the old part of the old part of the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the upper part of the old part of the old part of the defendant corresponds to the same as the malicious life stipulated in the insurance

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Jeong-kon