1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 8, 2007, Plaintiff A entered into an agreement between the Defendant and the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the view to paying KRW 20,000 and KRW 10,000 as insurance money in the event of the death of the Defendant and the insured, with his husband’s husband, as the insurance proceeds (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. Article 15(1) of the terms of the above insurance contract provides “1. The insured’s intention;

2. Beneficiary's intention;

3.Contractor's intention,

6. It is defined as non-compensation for the loss caused by a mental disorder or mental illness of the insured.

C. On April 10, 2012, Plaintiff A: (a) reduced mobile phone charging devices under the E’s item being divingd; and (b) died of the E’s physical form by pressure.

Plaintiff

A shall be above B.

The judgment was affirmed as a crime of murdering E, such as the paragraph, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

Daejeon High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No312 Decided October 10, 2012). E.

On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiffs claimed insurance money to the Defendant on April 23, 2012, but were refused, and there are Plaintiffs B, C, and D, the wife, as the heir of the network E.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the deceased E’s death constitutes an insured incident of injury or death as stipulated in the above insurance contract. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant, the insurer, shall pay 30 million won of the insurance money stipulated in the above insurance contract to the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased E, according to their shares of inheritance.

B. The defendant asserts that the above insurance contract does not compensate for the insurance accident caused by the contractor's intentional act, and that the death of the deceased E was caused by the murder by the plaintiff A's intentional act, which is the policyholder, and thus, the defendant is exempted from liability.