1. All claims filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. D employed F while operating the personal business entity of the trade name “E”. On October 22, 2010, the insured on October 22, 2010, the insurance period was determined from October 22, 2014 to October 22, 2019, and entered into a non-dividend dividends protocol insurance contract with the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant insurance contract”). (b)

According to the insurance contract of this case, the defendant is entitled to pay insurance proceeds when the insured is in a state of disability due to a driver's traffic injury or dies as a result of a direct result of an injury that occurred during the insurance period. The insured is F if he/she is alive, and D if he/she is deceased.

C. Around 14:45 on December 4, 2014, F driven a motor vehicle, and died due to the accident, towing a motor vehicle parked on the side while the vehicle was passing in front of the Busan-gun Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special

The plaintiff (Appointed Party) is F's wife, and the Selection B and C are F's children.

2. The allegations and the decision-making parties and the designated parties are F’s successors, seeking payment of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 as the bereaved family members of the death and death of injury as stipulated in the instant insurance contract.

However, as seen above, in the instant insurance contract, if the insured F is deceased, the beneficiary is stipulated D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s payment of the insurance money for F’s death to D is unfair because it is contrary to the purpose of the instant insurance contract, good morals, and other social order, and also brings about gambling of the insurance contract. However, as long as the instant insurance contract is effective, the Defendant cannot seek direct payment of the insurance money. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.