The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff, a company running the damage insurance business, etc., submitted duplicate evidence of C, etc. 148 (hereinafter “insured”) C, F (No. 1, 3), G (No. 1, 48, 134), G (No. 1-26, 53), and H (No. 1-25, 58). Accordingly, the Plaintiff violated the aforementioned evidence.

B Under each insurance contractor and the insured as the insured, each insurance contractor and the insured entered into an insurance contract for actual medical expenses (hereinafter “each insurance contract of this case”) that shall pay the amount of the medical expenses if they receive treatment by hospitalization in the hospital.

Between March 2015 and July 2019, the insured in this case received a white paper surgery (hereinafter “the instant surgery”) focusing on the addition of artificial inseminations to each inner field from the hospital located in Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant hospital”) operated by the Defendant.

The Defendant received medical expenses, such as expenses for the instant surgery and inspection, from the insured, and the insured of the instant case claimed insurance money from the Plaintiff according to each of the instant insurance contracts, and received insurance money, respectively.

On the other hand, there was controversy as to whether the instant surgery between the insurance company and the insured constitutes “sceptic Correction”, which is the grounds for exemption from the contractual terms for lost medical expenses.

Accordingly, on January 1, 2016, the Financial Supervisory Service revised the standard terms and conditions by adding a provision that "the part that is not in use of operation methods or treatment materials subject to benefits for national health insurance shall be deemed visual correction."

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 to 152, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, the artificial revised body insertion focusing on the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings is excluded from the beneficiary of the damage medical insurance for loss. The Financial Supervisory Service revised the standard terms and conditions to clarify this.

Nevertheless, the defendant has 1.