1. Attached Form;

1. The insurance proceeds resulting from the Plaintiff’s disability against the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Plaintiff based on the insurance contract;

1. Facts of premise;

A. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the Defendant, shall appoint the insured as the Defendant.

1. The insurance contract entered into (hereinafter “instant insurance”) and the major terms and conditions are attached hereto.

2. The terms and conditions and disability classification table are the same as the content, and the amount of insurance coverage for the parts of disability shall be 190,000,000.

B. B, while driving a CA car on April 19, 2012, around 15:30, 2012, the Defendant, a passenger of the said car, suffered injuries, such as broomd a broom, the left broom, and broomd the central line (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant was found to have reduced the 12 plehy with the above plehyke, and was found to have undergone a diagnosis of disability after having verified the 12.5% vertebrate (mar between medicines), and the appraisal of a separate lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2015da5101637) remains in spine form only after 23∑ 23 and 66.

On the other hand, the appraisal of a separate lawsuit shows that there is a strong symptoms to the left side, and there is a permanent legacy of the restriction on the scope of the official movement, as the result of the result of the climatic movement scope measurement, the following is that there is a permanent legacy of the restriction on the scope of the official movement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the premise that the occurrence of a residual disability in spine (verte, etc.) occurred, according to the premise, the Defendant left a little vertebral verteculction after treatment due to the instant accident. This falls under “the vertebrate, etc.,” and should be deemed to have caused the cause of paying the insurance proceeds for the remaining disability.

In this regard, the plaintiff is only a market for two years, and it is not a permanent disability. Therefore, the plaintiff argues that there is no ground for the payment of insurance money.