1. In relation to the injury inflicted on the part of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) due to an accident described in attached Table 1, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. On May 10, 2007, the Defendant concluded a franchise partnership agreement with the Plaintiff from May 10, 2007 to May 10, 202, 202, with the term of the contract from May 10, 2007.

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). B.

According to the insurance contract of this case, the plaintiff is entitled to compensate for the damage caused by the injury when the defendant, who is the insured, sustained bodily injury during the insurance period, due to the "emergency accident". The plaintiff is entitled to pay insurance proceeds according to the payment rate stipulated in the terms and conditions within the limit of 50 million won (general injury amounting to KRW 10 million and general injury additional KRW 40 million) in the event of the occurrence of the injury resulting from general injury.

C. On December 12, 2013, the Defendant received post-3-4-5 - 1,000 verteculical and post-defaculative devices fixed, and pelparative surgery from the Medical Center of Busan Metropolitan City.

On July 20, 2013, the Defendant suffered injury to the protruding escape certificate because he was walking at a place near the house, and caused the injury of the protruding escape certificate as described in paragraph (3). On June 13, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of insurance proceeds for the protruding disability.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's operation as above was not caused by an insured event as stipulated in the insurance contract of this case, but due to an existing sediative disease, and sought confirmation of the existence of the non-existence of the obligation to pay insurance proceeds.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the counterclaim was disslified and that there was a subsequent disability equivalent to the payment rate of 20% stipulated in the insurance contract of this case, and that the payment of KRW 10 million was claimed.

B. In determining the insurance accident requirement under the instant insurance clause, it is an injury to the effect that the “overcoming accidents” is an “overgoing accidents” among the “overgoing accidents.”