1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Deceased around November 25, 2009 (hereinafter “the Deceased”).

(3) In the event that each of the insurance contracts listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the Defendant Hyundai Sea and the separate sheet No. 2 as the insured (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant insurance contracts”), each of the instant insurance contracts is called

(2) Each of the instant insurance contracts asserted by the Defendants is an insurance contract that covers the death of another person as an insured accident, and thus, the insured died on December 2, 2012 and the occurrence of the insured events stipulated in each of the instant insurance contracts. As such, the insured is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the insurance proceeds from the death of the disease, which is KRW 40 million, KRW 50,000,000, KRW 500,000, and damages for delay against each of the said payments. (2) Each of the instant insurance contracts asserted by the Defendants is an insurance contract that covers the death of another person as an insured accident, with the written consent of the other person at the time of signing the insurance contract. Therefore, each of the instant insurance contracts is null and void, and the Defendants are not obligated to pay the insurance proceeds.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act, an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured accident shall obtain the consent of the other person in writing at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, which is a mandatory provision, and any contract concluded in violation of this provision is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da37084, Nov. 22, 1996). (2) In full view of the purport of the oral argument as to this case’s health class and evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff notified the deceased of the purchase of the insurance as if the deceased’s children subscribed to the insurance on Nov. 25, 2009, and received the deceased’s signature on the related documents, such as the written subscription for each insurance contract of this case. According to the above fact of recognition, each insurance contract of this case is concluded without the consent

Therefore, each contract of this case is based on the premise that it is valid.