1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On May 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an non-dividendG livelihood security insurance contract with the Defendant with the content as indicated in the attached Form, namely, B in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff as the insured.

B around February 27, 2013, around 23:34:56, after drinking alcohol from the stairs of the 309-dong 7th floor of the Joi-si, Susi-si, Seoul apartment, which he had been living in, and around February 28, 2013, he was found to have fallen outside of the same building and died (hereinafter “instant accident”).

After the accident of this case, the Plaintiff claimed insurance money against LIG damage insurance company, a telegraph of the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the payment of insurance money on June 28, 2013 on the ground that the deceased’s death was the intention of the insured among the grounds for the payment of insurance money under Article 17 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-12, Eul satisfy and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the statute of limitations defense prior to determining whether to claim the completion of the statute of limitations.

Article 62 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 12397, Mar. 11, 2014) which was in force at the time of the instant accident stipulates the extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance as two years (the amended Commercial Act extended the extinctive prescription to three years), and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 16, 2017 after two years from February 28, 2013, the date when the instant accident occurred, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to claim insurance expires due to the completion of the extinctive prescription.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Plaintiff’s assertion Gap 12 (the guidance on the exemption of insurance claims is the Plaintiff’s claim for death insurance proceeds against LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s claim is stated in paragraph (4) as follows: “In the event there is any objection different from the reported content, the contact may be made to the person in charge of the State, who is able to raise an objection.”

On the other hand, the Commercial Code was amended before amendment.