1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 13, 2017, C entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant and the Jeju Insured, the legal heir of the beneficiary of the death, and the insured’s death during the agricultural work prescribed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto on the ordinary day (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the basic type of insurance (general-type 1, husband and wife) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) that pays KRW 30 million to the bereaved family’s benefits in the event of death.

B. At around 14:30 on October 20, 2017, C driven a light rail, and was killed on October 26, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) on the following day: (a) one ton of the cargo vehicles followed while driving a road in front E-lane D in front of the frontwest-gun of the frontwest-gun; (b) one ton of the cargo vehicles did not discover the light rail due to a strokeing on the strokeing side; (c) the vehicle loaded the cargo on the front part of the cargo vehicle; and (d) the vehicle cut down into the front part of the cargo vehicle and received treatment on October 26, 2017 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

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

The deceased’s heir and the Plaintiff’s heir 1) filed a claim for insurance money with G, H, and I, who are the deceased’s spouse, as the deceased’s heir. However, G, H, and I reported the renunciation of inheritance on November 7, 2017 with the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch of Seoul District Court Decision 2017Ra207, and the report was accepted on November 7, 2017. (2) On December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff as the deceased’s heir, and the Defendant’s heir of the instant accident, set forth in attached Table 1-2(a) of the instant insurance terms and conditions.

The defendant claimed insurance money under the insurance contract of this case on the premise that the movement of the residence and the agricultural machinery between the residential and the agricultural workplace occurred, but the defendant rejected the payment of insurance money on the ground that the deceased did not die during the agricultural work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the accident of this case is an accident of this case 2. A of the insurance terms and conditions of this case.

Death from a disaster that occurs during the movement of agricultural machinery between residential and agricultural places of work.