1. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. D From December 13, 2013, around December 13, 2013, D concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant and the insured: (a) the beneficiary’s statutory heir of the beneficiary of death insurance, the insurance period from December 13, 2013 to December 13, 2050; and (b) the payment period from December 13, 2013 to December 13, 2050 to KRW 180 monthly payment and insurance premium 9,110 in 15 years; and (c) the insurance contract for unpaid dividends security 1310 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract

(2) The instant insurance contract provides that “where the insured died due to a general injury, the Defendant shall pay 4 million won insurance money to the statutory heir of D”.

3) Article 19 of the General Terms and Conditions of the instant insurance contract provides for the following. Article 19 (Grounds for Non-Payment of Insurance Proceeds) The company does not prevent insurance proceeds when any of the following events occurs: (i) intent of the insured (person insured) but if the insured (person insured) becomes himself/herself in a state that he/she cannot make a free decision due to mental disorder, etc., he/she shall pay insurance proceeds. (ii) D (i) around March 23, 2017 after the withdrawal from the military around March 23, 2017, and (ii) around 16:20 on March 28, 2017, it was discovered after combining the strings of pine trees in the G Yung-si parking lot located in Gangnam-si, which was located in Gangnam-si, with the removal of the strings of pine trees in the G-si area.

(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B and C’s children are the deceased. (3) After which the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 4 million of the death insurance money under the insurance contract of this case. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant stated the Plaintiff as “Article 18” in Article 19 subparag. 6 of the Ordinary Terms and Conditions as “Article 19,” but appears to be a clerical error in “Article 19.”

The answer was made that there was no responsibility to pay the death benefit pursuant to paragraph (1).

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 5, and Eul No. 2.