1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 5, 2015 to February 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant to pay insurance money within the limit of KRW 300 million according to whether or not the Plaintiff’s death or injury to the crew or passengers on board the instant helicopter (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. Meanwhile, around December 19:22, 2013, the instant helicopter, which was landing at the D helicopter landing zone, caused an accident in which gases were discharged (hereinafter “instant accident”). due to the instant accident, E, which was on board the instant helicopter, had a 25% wounded on the surface area and quantity of the safe part of the chrofe, and had a plebly significant plesy in both sides. On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 300 million (hereinafter “the instant insurance money”) to the Defendant, but demanded its return on December 4, 2015.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the insurance contract of this case constitutes an accident insurance for which the passenger and crew are the beneficiary, and thus, the relevant passenger and crew who suffered injury have the right to receive the insurance money of this case as the insured and beneficiary, and cannot be deemed to have the right to receive the insurance money of this case. ② If the defendant is the beneficiary of the insurance of this case as alleged by the defendant, the insurance contract of this case is an accident insurance for which another person's injury as stipulated in Article 731 of the Commercial Act is an accident accident, and the insurance contract of this case is null and void since the defendant did not obtain the written consent of the insurance contract of this case from the plaintiff.