1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant shall pay 50,000,000 won to each of the plaintiffs.

1. Around 2014, an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) entered into a group insurance contract with the Defendant with employees of the company including the insured, policyholders, and beneficiaries as the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

On May 8, 2014, the network C died as a traffic accident around 01:38.

The Plaintiffs are legal successors of the deceased C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant in subrogation of the intervenor on the ground that the intervenor did not claim insurance money against the defendant. The intervenor filed a lawsuit against the defendant on the ground that the intervenor did not claim insurance money against the defendant during the proceeding of the lawsuit in this case. The plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant and the intervention of the defendant in this case are identical in substance to the same lawsuit even if the parties are different, so the intervention of the defendant in this case, which is the subsequent lawsuit, is unlawful in violation of the prohibition of double lawsuit under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. In the case of group insurance for determining the causes of claims of the plaintiffs, since there are no specific provisions in the relevant laws such as the Commercial Act regarding the designation of beneficiary, the policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for others with the insured who are members of the organization as beneficiary. The policyholder can enter into an insurance contract for himself as beneficiary of the organization. Since it is not a group insurance contract for others, it cannot be said that designating the beneficiary as the policyholder itself is contrary to the nature of group insurance, but it cannot be said that designating the beneficiary as the policyholder itself is contrary to the nature of group insurance. In other words, the insurance contract of this case is during the insurance period,