2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

2. The lower part of 3 pages 6-9 at the bottom of the said 3th page deleted the phrase “the language and text of the said provision can be interpreted, but the part is deleted.”

Then, “The fact that the insurance contract of this case cannot be executed at the bottom of 3 pages” is added to “the fact that the insurance contract of this case separates the hospitalization due to disease and death due to disease into a separate special agreement and sets each insurance premium.”

The following shall be added between four pages 1 and two:

Article 655 of the Commercial Act provides that “ Even if the Defendant and B violated the duty of disclosure, the instant insurance accident occurred due to food cancer unrelated to high blood pressure, which is a disease that was not notified, the Defendant is liable to pay the death benefit to the Plaintiff pursuant to the proviso to Article 655 of the Commercial Act.” Article 655 of the Commercial Act provides that “The insurer is not liable to pay the insurance benefits even after the occurrence of the insurance accident, if the contract was terminated pursuant to Articles 650, 651, 652, and 653, and may demand the return of the insurance proceeds already paid: Provided, That if it is proved that the occurrence of the insurance accident was significantly changed or increased, the insurer is not affected by the duty of disclosure, the insurer shall be liable to pay the insurance proceeds.” However, as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff’s termination of the insurance contract of this case on December 21, 2016, which was a violation of the duty of disclosure, there is no room for the Defendant’s assertion that the foregoing provision was applicable to Bam.”

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is examined.