1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff subscribed to the Defendant Company’s “Undividend C” insurance products, and the main content of the said insurance contract is as follows.

Insurance period: From August 21, 2014 to August 21, 2024, the insured: The secured name of the Plaintiff (the father of the Plaintiff): The insured amount: 50,000,000 compensation for traffic injury, injury, death, or disability after the death of the Plaintiff: The insured amount paid in cases of death due to a traffic accident:

B. At around 16:57 on February 21, 2016, D, while driving a horse at the duct of a duct in the field of a duct in the front North Chang-gun, Chang-gun, the Plaintiff died at a heart due to the cutting of a duct, etc. on the right side of the wind that requires clothes at the duct of the ductator, while loading composts, and then loading composts. D died at a heart due to the cutting of a duct, etc. at the duct inside the front of the duct of the duct of the duct which was the aftermath of the duct.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On May 28, 2016, the Plaintiff signed a written document stating that “The instant accident does not constitute an insurance benefit for the death of an injury resulting from transportation, and thus, ought to be confirmed and consented to the exemption from liability.” On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million and KRW 300,000 from the Defendant for the death benefit of an injury and KRW 10

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident constitutes a traffic injury and death accident but consented to the confirmation of exemption by mistake, and that the said confirmation was revoked, and sought payment of the insurance money for death of a traffic accident against the Defendant.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident is “accidents that occurred while construction machinery or agricultural machinery is used as work machinery,” and does not fall under the subject of insurance.

B. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted earlier and the statements or images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, 1) the network D (hereinafter “the network”).

The accident of this case, together with the wife F.