1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 agreed on May 29, 190 to the non-party, beneficiary, and the contract period of the deceased's employment contract until May 29, 195. The above insurance was paid 40,00,000 won when the insured died. The non-party 1 did not know that the non-party 2 violated the above contract of the deceased's employment contract of this case on the ground that the non-party 1 violated the duty to inform the deceased's employment contract of this case on the condition that the non-party 9's employment contract of this case was no more than that of the above 9's employment contract of this case, and that the non-party 9's employment contract of this case was no more than that of the above 9's employment contract of this case. The non-party 9's employment contract of this case was no more than that of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 9's employment insurance contract of this case was no more likely than that of this case's.

2. First of all, in concluding the injury insurance contract between the defendant company and the non-party company of this case, the non-party's occupational contact with the insured company, but the non-party's false notice constitutes a violation of the duty of disclosure of important matters. The court below acknowledged that the non-party's employment constitutes a violation of the duty

Meanwhile, when it is proved that the above violation of the duty of disclosure did not affect the occurrence of the insurance accident, that is, the insurance company cannot terminate the insurance contract on the ground of the above misrepresentation notification, pursuant to the proviso of Article 655 of the Commercial Act, when it is proved that the occurrence of the insurance accident was not by the fact that the policyholder was not notified or was not by the fact that the occurrence of the insurance accident was not by the fact that the insurance policyholder was not by the above misrepresentation, but the insurer cannot terminate the insurance contract on the ground of the above misrepresentation notification. However, the burden of proving that the occurrence of the insurance accident in violation of the duty of disclosure and the existence of the causation is on the part of the policyholder (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da20

Therefore, regarding the termination of the insurance contract of this case by the above non-party, the insurer, on the ground that the non-party, the insured, was in violation of the duty of disclosure as to the occupation, the fact that the non-party, as the insurance accident of this case, was caused by the death of the above non-party, who was the insurance accident of this case, in order to ask the defendant company for the liability of paying the insurance proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the above law, should not be actively proved that the non-party, who was the above non-party

However, according to the records, the plaintiff did not have any specific evidence as to the absence of a causal relationship as above in the pleading of this case, and merely argued that the occurrence of the death accident of the above non-party is nothing more related to his occupation. The court below found that the non-party was engaged in a contact loan between the police officer of May 1990 and the June 2 of this year, based on the document No. 2 (a certificate) submitted by the defendant to prove the violation of the duty of disclosure as to the occupation of the non-party. It is clear to the purport that the non-party was engaged in a contact loan different from the above notification contents and thereafter there is no causal relation between the fact that the non-party was died due to a traffic accident in Japan on November 21, 190.

However, the above certificate contains a statement that the above non-party was working as a contact loan during the above period. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the above non-party was not working as a contact loan even at the time of the death of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the lower court did not exclude the possibility that the said non-party was engaged in the duties related to the entertainment business immediately before the death in light of the circumstances leading up to traffic accidents while walking along the roadway in the area where entertainment establishments located in the east of Japan at the time of the death of the instant case.

If the above non-party has been engaged in a continuous contact loan even before the death, the occurrence of his death would be due to a sudden traffic accident, but it is sufficient to view that the occurrence time or place was attributable to the activity of the contact loan when considering the special circumstances, such as the occurrence time and place, etc. In such a case, it cannot be concluded that there was no causal relationship between the occurrence of the above accident and the violation of the duty of disclosure as to the employment of the insured under the contract

Ultimately, the court below recognized that the above deceased was engaged in a entertainment loan only on May 1990. However, on the ground that the direct private person of the insured was caused by traffic accident, it cannot be said that there was an error of misconception of facts or an error of law regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions on the termination of the insurance contract under the Commercial Act and the right to claim the amount of insurance money under the Commercial Act, on the ground that the existence of a causal relationship with the occupation of the above deceased was caused by a mistake of evidence judgment,

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)