1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(The findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different, even considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. Additional decision

A. Even if the death of the deceased alleged as an accident that is not caused by the insured’s intentional act, the deceased was caused by death in a situation where free decision-making is unable to be made based on the depression, which is a mental illness, which led to the death of the deceased, which constitutes a loss caused by the insured’s mental illness as stipulated in Article 16(1) of the Terms and Conditions of the Insurance Contract of this case.

B. According to the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the judgment, it can be acknowledged that Article 16(1) of the Clause of the Insurance Contract of this case provides that the damage caused by the mental disorder or mental illness of the insured is not compensated.

If the terms and conditions stipulate the mental illness as separate independent reasons from the suicide of the insured, the purport of such exemption is to exclude the increased risk from the subject matter of insurance protection, and the risks taken over from the insurance can be determined differently depending on the insurance products, so the terms and conditions of the contract providing for the exemption cannot be deemed as a provision that lose fairness because they are unfairly unfavorable to the customer. Thus, the insured has reached a state in which it is impossible to make free decision due to mental illness.