1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial of the court of first instance while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion even if both the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the statements in Gap's evidence No. 10, 11, and 12 submitted in the court of

Accordingly, the court's explanation on the instant case shall add the judgment as stated in the following Paragraph 2 to the argument that the plaintiff made in the preliminary argument at the trial, and the insurance term of "No. 11 of the 4th decision of the court of first instance".

“Insurance Term” (hereinafter referred to as “Insurance Term”)

In addition, the fact-finding results with respect to E mental health department of the first instance court, “the fact-finding results of the fact-finding results of E mental health department of the first instance court,” and the 7th parallels through 20th parallels, as described in paragraph 3 below, are as follows, and the 9th parallels 5th parallels are as follows.

Insurers: the Defendant’s “Defendant”

The insurer is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for each dismissal as the plaintiff, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion also contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident, such as: (a) the deceased’s duty to pay the insurance proceeds, even if he was liable to the Plaintiff; (b) the deceased’s failure to actively treat one’s betting cards, such as not taking proper treatment; and (c) the deceased’s refusal to recommend the hospital to be hospitalized in the closed ward ward; and (d) the deceased’s liability ratio exceeds 50%; (b) thus, the Plaintiff’s duty to pay the insurance proceeds ought to be limited to not more

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part can be seen as a comparative assertion that the deceased’s negligence should be considered in determining the scope of insurance payment against the Defendants. The comparative negligence is in line with the principle of equity and good faith in determining the scope of compensation for damages caused by tort.