Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Articles of Incorporation, Public-Service Advocates et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 31, 2007

1. In relation to the traffic accident that occurred to the Defendant on October 3, 2002, it is confirmed that there is no insurance payment obligation against the Defendant based on the life insurance contract (securities number omitted) between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 on July 3, 2002.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 11, Gap evidence 13, and Eul evidence 4:

A. On July 3, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a life insurance contract (securities number: hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Nonparty 1 as the Defendant, the beneficiary at maturity and at the time of life, and the beneficiary at the time of hospitalization and disability as the Defendant, the beneficiary at the time of death as the statutory inheritor at the time of death, and entered into a life insurance contract (securities number: omitted) with respect to the non-payment of dividends (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The subscription amount of disaster disability security special agreement is KRW 25,00,000, and the main contents of the terms are as shown in the attached Table.

B. At around 18:30 on October 3, 2002, Non-party 2 suffered a shock traffic accident without discovering the ozone layer of the defendant's driving while he was going to night at home, and the defendant transferred the hospital and received hospitalized treatment. The non-party 2 was diagnosed as "Article 3, 4-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3-3-3

C. In the response to the request for review made on December 3, 2002, the Non-Life Insurance Review Committee determined that the causal link between the traffic accident and the third, fourth, fourth, and fourth, fourth, fourth, and fourth, the causal link between the accident is recognized (100% of the degree of contribution), and the anticipated subsequent disability is likely to obstruct one’s own 2 years in accordance with the V-D-D-B paragraph 4 of the Madrade Table P.80 T.80 T.80 T.80 T.84 of the Madradrade, and the 3-4th, which shows the disc protruding.

D. On May 15, 2003, the Plaintiff recognized a traffic accident of grade 5 under the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract to the Defendant, and paid KRW 25,000,000 (including interest in arrears: KRW 25,064,657) with the traffic accident of grade 5 insurance.

E. However, on October 23, 2004, the defendant transferred a hospital to another person who feel with severe pains, and received medical treatment. In addition, the above Byung's name constitutes class 3 (9) of the Table of Disability Classification of Life Insurance Terms and Conditions (hereinafter "the injury in this case"), along with the diagnosis of re-explosion escape (the apparatus fixed state) No. 3-4-5 of the 2006 in the 006 in the 00s and hospital treatment, and the above Byung's name falls under class 3-4 (1) of the Table of Disability Classification of the Life Insurance Terms and Conditions (the case in which spine permanently opened the high-level or high-level gymnasium). On November 11, 2006, the defendant submitted a report of accident confirmation to the plaintiff and filed a claim for insurance proceeds.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In this case, the Defendant’s injury, in particular, spine vertebrate flive disease, and the Defendant’s present condition does not fall under class 3 of the disability grade stipulated in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case. Thus, in relation to the traffic accident that occurred to the Defendant on October 3, 2002, the Defendant’s insurance payment liability against the Defendant based on the insurance contract of this case is not recognized, and the statute of limitations expired even if the liability for the payment of household insurance is recognized

B. Defendant’s assertion

The injury in this case was aggravated after the above traffic accident and surgery, and, in particular, spinon ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate was caused or aggravated by the escape certificate due to the above traffic accident. At present, the defendant is limited to not more than 1/4 of the normal sports range due to the restriction of the movement of the ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate, and the movement angle of the digging, efrans, and ebsium 3th class 9 of the normal sports range. Thus, the plaintiff is obliged to pay 12.5 million won as of the date of the occurrence of the traffic accident every

C. Determination

First, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant's sports field remains permanently and falls under class 3 of the terms of the insurance contract of this case. According to the results of the physical examination entrustment and the results of the request for the supplementation of the physical examination of the head of the Hung University's affiliated hospital of this court, the defendant shows a significant limitation (60do/60do), but this is not the standard for determining the sports ground of the Hung University's main body, but the defendant's movement ability to conduct the physical examination in the event of a change in the main body. In light of this, it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement of the evidence No. 10 of the evidence No. 10 remains permanently, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Thus, with respect to the traffic accident that occurred to the defendant on October 3, 2002, there is no insurance payment obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant under the insurance contract of this case, and as long as the defendant contests this, there is the benefit of confirmation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)