1. With respect to the accident described in paragraph 2 of the attached list, the plaintiff is based on the insurance contract described in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 12, 2007, around December 2, 2007, when the insured was the Defendant and the insured suffered from the harm, B entered into an insurance contract on the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) including guarantee of payment of insurance proceeds within the limit of KRW 200,000,000, and the beneficiary is the Defendant at the time of survival of the said insurance contract.

B. On November 5, 2013, the Defendant suffered injuries, such as flick aggregate, flick aggregate flicking on the right side, flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick c

C. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant was diagnosed as an in-post proof upon the following: (a) as a result of the Materna Hospital’s post-recognition test and the post-regniation test conducted on March 25, 2015; and (b) as a result of the implementation of the KVS Test II in the offset white hospital on August 25, 2015, the Defendant was diagnosed as an in-post certificate.

On August 31, 2015, according to the insurance contract of this case, the Defendant claimed insurance money on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered from post-ex post facto disability equivalent to 15% of the loss rate of labor ability due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

가. 원고의 주장 원고가 이 사건 사고로 입은 우측 쇄골 골절 등의 상해와 피고의 후각 상실은 연관성이 없어 이 사건 사고가 후각 상실의 원인이라고 볼 수 없고, 피고는 이미 1992년경 수도통합병원 이비인후과에서 코막힘, 코뼈 휨 등의 증상으로 코 수술을 받은 바 있어 피고의 후각 상실은 이 사건 사고가 아닌 피고의 기왕증으로 인한 것이므로, 원고는 피고에게 후유장해보험금을 지급할 의무가 없다.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant is guilty of the amount equivalent to 15% of the payment rate of the insurance proceeds for the remaining disability due to the accident in this case.