1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding a family judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the extinctive prescription has expired;

A. The Defendants asserted that the period of prescription under Article 662 of the Commercial Act (two years) has expired even if the Plaintiffs’ claim for the insurance proceeds resulting from the death of a disaster is recognized.

B. (1) Where a claim for insurance money is not exercised within two years, the extinctive prescription is completed (Article 662 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 12397, Mar. 11, 2014). The extinctive prescription runs from the time an insured incident occurred, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da66878 delivered on March 23, 2000, etc.). In this case, the facts that the deceased died on February 17, 2008 do not conflict between the parties, and thus, the insured event under the insurance contract of this case occurred at that time. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs claimed the payment of the insurance money to the Defendants before November 26, 2014, the date of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for the insurance money for the death of this case was extinguished by the prescription period, barring any special circumstance. [It is apparent that the two-year period has elapsed even if based on the plaintiff's general date of payment of the insurance money for death (in the case of Defendant Samsung Bio-G) or March 3, 2008 (in the case of Defendant JG), the claim for the insurance money for death of this case was extinguished by the prescription period, barring any special circumstance.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted that the statute of limitations expired constitutes abuse of rights.

On the other hand, the obligor's exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations is governed by the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of our civil law.