1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff against the defendant based on the insurance contract stated in the attached list No. 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2004, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant main contract”) with the Plaintiff, and on the same day, entered into a special agreement listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”) attached to the instant main contract, which refers to the instant main contract and the instant special agreement.

B. On May 4, 2014, the insured Party B died after breaking a tree at his home.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On May 13, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the payment of the insurance proceeds stipulated in the instant insurance contract. The Plaintiff’s instant accident falls under the grounds for the payment of the insurance proceeds stipulated in the instant prime contract (i.e., death). However, considering that the instant accident does not fall under the grounds for the payment of the insurance proceeds stipulated in the instant special agreement (i.e., death) and does not fall under the grounds for the payment of the insurance proceeds stipulated in the instant special agreement, the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant on May 15, 2014, and refused the payment of the insurance proceeds stipulated in

Among the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, the main contents related to the instant case are as stated in the attached insurance terms and conditions.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of suicide does not constitute a case of death as a direct cause of an accident (e.g., an external accident) which is one of the causes for the payment of insurance money as stipulated in Article 9 of the Clause of the Disaster Special Agreement in the instant case where the Plaintiff intentionally impaired himself/herself, and thus, does not constitute grounds for the payment

Therefore, the proviso of Article 11(1)1 of the Clause of the Disaster Contract of this case, which provides for the grounds for restrictions on suicide exemption, is null and void as an unnecessary and indefinite provision, and the plaintiff and the defendant enter into the insurance contract of this case.