1. Attached Table 1 A;

b) the same list with respect to the accidents described in the paragraph.

the insurance contract mentioned in paragraph (1).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, an insurance company, as the insured on December 30 through December 30, 2012, as the insured between the Defendant working in the above UNFF, and the insurance period is from December 30, 2012 to December 30, 2013.

The insurance contract mentioned in the subsection (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) was concluded.

B. The Defendant, on November 15, 2013, attached Form 1 A.

The accident described in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) was caused.

C. On May 26, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the insurance proceeds of KRW 10 million for the remaining disability due to the instant accident, but the Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’s claim for the payment of insurance proceeds.

On June 19, 2014, the Defendant was issued by his doctor B a written diagnosis of post-accident disability with the content that the occurrence of post-accident stress disorder to the Defendant due to the instant accident.

E. Of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, the part relating to the instant case is as shown in the attached Table 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking insurance proceeds of KRW 10 million equivalent to 10% of the maximum amount of compensation for residual disability due to the instant accident, on the ground that the stress disorder occurred, and the stress disorder on external wounds is 13. 7 (7) of the Disability Classification Table of the instant Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “instant exclusion clause”).

This "Ex post facto stress disorder, etc. shall not be eligible for compensation," which excludes persons eligible for compensation for a post facto disability. Therefore, the plaintiff has no obligation to pay insurance proceeds from post facto disability to the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of the exclusion clause constitutes an unfair clause that is unreasonably unfavorable to customers.