1. An insured event of the Plaintiff’s insurance contract based on the insurance contract listed in the attached Table 1 List against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract between the Defendant and the insured as indicated in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On October 29, 2012, the Defendant was diagnosed with brain cerebrovascular, and on August 1, 2016, on the basis of the above diagnosis, filed a claim with the Plaintiff for payment of expenses for brain color diagnosis based on the insurance contract of this case.

【Ground for recognition】 Unsatisf

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim for the insurance money for brain death diagnosis costs has expired by prescription.

(2) According to the evidence evidence No. 5, Article 23 of the Special Terms and Conditions of the instant insurance contract provides that if the right to claim insurance money is not exercised for two years, the extinctive prescription is complete.

In addition, under Article 662 of the Commercial Act before the amendment by Act No. 12397 of March 11, 2014, the extinctive prescription of a claim for insurance money is complete if it is not exercised for two years.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s right to claim for medical expenses for cerebrovascular is extinguished by prescription on August 1, 2016, when the occurrence of an insured incident occurred when the cerebrscular diagnosis was conducted on October 29, 2012, and two years have passed since it was possible to exercise the right to claim insurance proceeds from the occurrence of the insured event.

B. (1) The Defendant is unable to claim extinctive prescription on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not either deliver the terms and conditions or explain the terms and conditions of the contract.

(2) If the terms and conditions are generally and commonly used in transactions even if they are provided for in the terms and conditions, and the customer could have sufficiently predicted without any separate explanation, or if there are matters that are merely a possibility of refusing or delaying what is provided by the laws and regulations, it cannot be said that the business operator has an obligation to specify and explain such matters.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da274904, Apr. 13, 2017). The terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract relating to extinctive prescription are refusing or delaying the contents of Article 662 of the Commercial Act.