보험계약헤지무효확인등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 24, 2011, the Plaintiff saw a pain on the right upper part of the hospital B, and took X-ray photographs from the doctor in charge, saying, “The same is that the upper part of the hospital was not damaged, but that the upper part was found in the upper part of the hospital, so that the upper part of the body was found to be rashed on the left part, so the Plaintiff visited again one week after an accurate diagnosis.”
Then, on August 31, 201, the Plaintiff heard opinions from the doctor in charge of B hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s “it is doubtful of the fluoral finite in the opposite to the left pelpel,” and received a written request for medical treatment from another hospital.
B. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff subscribed to the “Insurance 1108” insurance, which is a kind of the accident insurance sold by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant insurance”). At the time of subscription, the Plaintiff responded to the question, “within three months, whether he/she has received medical treatment such as a disease confirmation diagnosis or disease suspicion diagnosis, treatment, hospitalization, surgery, medication, etc. through a diagnosis by a doctor within three months,” and “I do not agree with all questions,” “I have received any additional examination or reinspection by a doctor during the latest one year.”
C. From January 2013, the Plaintiff did not have received any additional diagnosis or treatment with respect to the left-hand withdrawal portion. Around January 2013, the first year and three months after the Plaintiff subscribed to the instant insurance, the Plaintiff visited C Hospital with a pain on the part of the Huri part, which was marked on January 14, 2013, and was marked with MaI on the right-hand upper part. At the time, MaI was marked on the left-hand withdrawal portion.
C The physician in charge of the hospital recommended the Plaintiff to undergo a close inspection on the left-hand side of the hospital, and applied for the outpatient examination to the D Hospital.
On January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) at a hospital, conducted X-ray on the left-hand left-hand side ray image and CT photography; (b) was subject to organizational inspection on March 2013; and (c) as a result, the Plaintiff’s new fluoral on the left-hand left-hand fluoral species are cultivated.