[Judgment of the court below]

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Park Gyeong-ro, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 13, 2009

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap37365 Decided November 21, 2008

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On October 25, 2006, it is confirmed that the dismissal of the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 25, 2006 is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as follows, except where the part from the end of the eight to the nine first line of the decision of the first instance is used as follows. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“In light of the opinion of the doctor in charge at the time of the application for postponement of the above medical care on January 2004, according to the opinion of the doctor in charge at the time of the application for postponement of the above medical care, the plaintiff is considered to be able to receive medical care at least twice a month, and the subsequent testamentary gift system (the system that can receive medical care at least once a month even after the completion of the medical care). In addition, the plaintiff voluntarily postponed the hospitalization on the ground that it is disadvantageous to the lawsuit in progress at the time of the application for postponement of the above medical care (the evidence No. 4-1), and the physical appraisal report against the plaintiff on September 29, 2006, which was the time of the dismissal of the case, stated that if the plaintiff undergoes mental medical treatment, it is not considered that the work itself is not a status of loss of labor force (the evidence No. 4-6). Ultimately, at the time of the dismissal of the case, it does not seem that the plaintiff was necessary to suspend the medical care for the condition of loss of labor force.”

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed due to the lack of grounds.

Judges Kim Sang-chul (Presiding Judge) and Kim Sung-chul