beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.
2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasons why a member of the basic facts states this part are as follows: ① on the other hand, “one day, close,” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance to “the brain dystrophy,” and ② the modification of the second part of the judgment of the court of second half to “the brain dystrophy (I63)”, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main part of Article 420
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was diagnosed with brain death that constitutes an insurance accident under each of the above insurance contracts on January 11, 2008. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the insurance proceeds under each of the above insurance contracts to the plaintiff and return the insurance premiums that have been continuously paid even after the above diagnosis date, notwithstanding the exemption from the obligation to pay the monthly insurance premiums.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s symptoms do not fall under “brain color (I63)”, which is a damage compensation, or there is no diagnosis confirmation that there is no agreement between the two precision tests (MRI, etc.) that are appropriate for brain color and the opinion on brain color. Therefore, it cannot be said that the insured event occurred.
3. Determination
A. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 24, the plaintiff taken a brain marrympic image (MRI) at the time of January 11, 2008 in the hospital Kimhae-si B, and as a result, the doctor in charge D diagnosed the plaintiff with brain marry (I63) on January 14, 2008. The plaintiff issued the medical certificate on September 14, 2008. On September 14, 2010, the plaintiff taken a brain mpic image (MRI) upon birth within the hospital of Yangsan-si, Busan-si. As a result, the doctor in charge diagnosed the "outside mI; the right to the left-hand brain marrymosis;" while, on the other hand, the Helan Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd. transferred the insurance money to the plaintiff around December 7, 2009.
B. However, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 17, 20, 24, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including paper numbers) are as follows.