1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination: B; “insured: insurance coverage amount: 100,000,000,” “contract period: From December 28, 2011,” and “Death” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”); and B died on April 13, 2013, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 in accordance with the instant insurance contract.

Although the Defendant’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was an insurance contract that covers the death of another person as an insured accident and obtained the written consent of B, the Plaintiff concluded the instant insurance contract without the written consent, the instant insurance contract is null and void.

(1) Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the insured person’s written consent shall be subject to a written consent to each insurance contract as well as the existence of a written consent to each of the following matters: (a) the insured person’s consent shall be individually written consent to each of the insurance contracts, and as long as there is no written consent to each of the following grounds for defense that the insurance contract of this case is null and void; and (b) there is no need to further examine the other defendant’s defense; and (c) the other defendant’s defense shall not be determined. As such, Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the risk of gambling insurance in the insurance contract which covers the death of the other person as a peril insured against, and the risk of killing the insured person and the risk of infringement on public order and good morals. Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24451, Jul. 22, 2003). According to the evidence No. 4, the instant insurance contract is “the death of another person”.