1. On September 20, 2005, the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to traffic accidents occurred in front of the support post office for Taedong-dong, Gwangju Metropolitan City.

1. Conclusion of insurance contracts and occurrence of insurance accidents;

A. On December 2, 1998, the Defendant concluded a non-dividend traffic safety insurance contract with the Plaintiff, the insured, and the beneficiary (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On September 20, 2005, the Defendant suffered a traffic accident (hereinafter “instant insurance accident”) in front of the Gwangju Dong-dong Support Post Office (hereinafter “instant insurance accident”), and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the insurance amount equivalent to class 4 disability according to the said insurance contract.

C. On September 4, 2012, the Defendant received a diagnosis of brain ties from a national hospital, and filed a claim for insurance proceeds corresponding to class 2 of disability with the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, Article 3 (3) of the Clause of the above insurance contract provides that if the grade of the disability is not determined within 180 days from the date of the disaster, the grade of the disability shall be determined based on the disability diagnosis as of the 180th day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that there is no causal relationship with the instant insurance accident, even if there is a causal relationship, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds equivalent to class 4 of disability as a disability finalized after 180 days pursuant to Article 3(3) of the said Terms and Conditions, and thus, there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay insurance proceeds to the Defendant.

3. On the other hand, the burden of proof of causation between the insurance accident in this case and the defendant's disability status is the defendant, but there is no evidence to prove causation.

Rather, according to the above evidence, the defendant cannot be ruled out that it was a old age of 79 years at the time of the above disability examination due to the birth of 1933, and the above disability examination is confirmed seven years after the accident. Even according to the result of the court's request for the examination of medical records, the insurance accident in this case and the defendant.