2. After filing an appeal.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 420 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court below's findings and determination of facts in the first instance court are justifiable even if the evidence No. 6 and No. 7 were included in the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance, and there were no errors as alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff). 3. The judgment as to the conjunctive claim (claim for damages)

A. At the time of entering into each of the instant insurance contracts, the Plaintiff A and the Deceased known that each of the Defendants’ respective insurance solicitors was engaged in bus operation and fishing operation.

In such a case, each of the above insurance solicitors has a duty to explain the fact that the insurance contracts are not concluded or that the insurance contracts may be terminated on the grounds of breach of duty of disclosure after the termination of each of the insurance contracts in this case, thereby causing damages to the plaintiffs due to the termination of each of the insurance contracts in this case, so the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages under Article 102 (1) of the Insurance Business Act.

B. 1) When concluding an insurance contract, the insurer is obligated to provide the policyholder with specific and detailed explanation and explanation as to the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance product, the system of premium rates, the grounds for termination of the insurance contract, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27054, Aug. 22, 2003). The insurer causes damage to the policyholder in violation of the above duty of explanation while soliciting the insurance solicitor, etc.