1. The plaintiff is based on the insurance contract stated in the attached list No. 2 with respect to the insurance accident stated in the attached list No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant listed in [Attachment List 2] (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On October 29, 2013, the Defendant sustained injuries on the left side of the left side while going beyond the downway during military training.

(2) On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred (hereinafter “instant accident”) and claimed insurance proceeds based on the instant insurance contract to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the injury suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case does not fall under the disability under the provisions of the insurance contract of this case, there is no obligation to pay insurance money under the insurance contract of this case, while the defendant should be paid insurance money under the insurance contract of this case

B. On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims the first time to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the fact of the occurrence of the obligation, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts of the legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the accident of this case caused the occurrence of the cause of the payment of the insurance money stipulated in the insurance contract of this case

(The defendant only made a statement to seek the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the second date for pleading, and did not make any assertion or evidence despite this court's order to make an explanation.

Therefore, in relation to the accident of this case, there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money to the defendant based on the insurance contract of this case, and as long as the defendant contests this, there is a benefit to seek confirmation.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.