1. The Defendant’s KRW 218,336,060 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 1, 2016 to February 17, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the birth of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”). The Defendant is a person who was in de facto marital relationship with the deceased from around 2005.

B. On June 9, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Masung Life Insurance”) with the content that the insured is the Plaintiff, the beneficiary at the time of injury, the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff”, and the beneficiary at the time of death as “he heir” and entered into a non-dividend social care insurance contract.

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). C.

On September 17, 2008, the Plaintiff changed both the beneficiary and the beneficiary to “the Defendant” upon the death of the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract.

(hereinafter “instant change of beneficiary”). D.

On March 14, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Deceased caused an accident of gas explosion, and the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as telegraphic video, etc., and the Deceased died.

E. On October 21, 2014, the Defendant received insurance money of KRW 218,336,060 from Samsung Bio-resources as a beneficiary at the time of injury to the instant insurance contract from Samsung Bio-resources.

(hereinafter “instant insurance proceeds”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 15, and 16, and the result of fact-finding on Samsung Bio-resources

2. Summary of the parties' arguments and determination thereof

A. The summary of the argument (1) The change of the beneficiary of this case is invalid since it does not depend on the Plaintiff’s genuine intent. Even if the change of the beneficiary of this case is valid, the Defendant agreed to pay the insurance money of this case to the Plaintiff, and thus, sought the payment

(2) The change of the beneficiary of this case by Defendant is lawful as it was conducted with the consent of the Plaintiff according to the proposal of the Deceased, and the Defendant did not have a duty to respond

(b) No dispute between the parties to the judgment or the fact-finding on Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 10, 11, and 13 (including Serials), witness D, and E’s testimony and Samsung Bio-resources.