1. The Defendant’s KRW 88,739,018 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 12, 2013 to October 15, 2018 for the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 28, 1999, the Plaintiff concluded the C insurance contract with the insured as the defendant and the D insurance contract with the insured as the defendant on September 11, 2004, respectively.

(hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”). (b)

Upon the Defendant’s claim based on each of the instant insurance contracts, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 91,239,479 (hereinafter “instant insurance proceeds”) from May 21, 2008 to July 11, 2013.

(Specific details of payment shall be as indicated in the attached Table in the "Date of Payment of Insurance Money" and the "Insurance Money to be Paid".

On the other hand, on November 17, 2017, the Defendant abused the fact that “the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, entered into an insurance contract with five insurance companies including the Plaintiff, will be paid daily allowances when receiving hospital treatment.” On the other hand, the Defendant, even if only a hospital which is relatively easy to be hospitalized with respect to a disease that can be treated as a disease requiring hospital treatment or hospital treatment, was receiving hospital treatment for a long time as necessary, and acquired insurance proceeds by means of continuous transfer of hospital and long-term hospitalization.

The defendant from April 9, 2008 to the same year.

5. From the F Hospital located in Sinpo City E until September 19, he was diagnosed by the 41st day after being hospitalized after being diagnosed by the malute mar, the malute mar, etc.

However, the Defendant did not have any special opinion as a result of the examination of MOI on radiation shooting, on the internal and external occasions, and on the basis that there was no special opinion as a result of the examination of MOI, and it was confirmed that the Defendant had been given vaccination to the Defendant during the period of hospitalization, but there was no record of implementation, and thus, it is doubtful that the Defendant could have been given vaccination to the Defendant. The above disease treatment of the Defendant could have been sufficiently possible or shortly hospitalized even when it was based on outpatient treatment, and the Defendant was hospitalized for 41 days excessively from the insurance company to

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.