A. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff operating an insurance business: (a) between the Defendant and the Defendant, the insured was the Defendant’s mother B and the beneficiary; and (b) the insured was the Defendant to pay KRW 60 million to the beneficiary in the event that the insured died of a disease during the insurance period; and (b) concluded an insurance contract on the attached Table 2 stating that the insured would pay a certain amount of insurance money to the beneficiary in the event that the insured was conducted or hospitalized due to cancer diagnosis or cancer (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. However, from July 18, 2007 to December 29, 2010, B received a total of 19 times of pain treatment due to urology, pulmonary tuberculosis, etc. at the Korean National Tuberculosis Association (Korean National Tuberculosis Association). On March 28, 2009, C hospital prepared a drug of approximately 720 days for 21 days of urology with urology at the C hospital. However, at the time of concluding the insurance contract of this case, B expressed that there was no corresponding issue as to whether “whether there is a disease confirmation, treatment, or medication with urology from a doctor to urology within the last five years” in the subscription form for the insurance contract of this case.

C. B was diagnosed with Jindom Mad, D, on March 21, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant filed a claim for cancer diagnosis, etc. on April 15, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff notified that the instant insurance contract was terminated on the ground that B did not notify the fact that it was treated as urology at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, and that it violated the duty of disclosure. However, regarding cancer diagnosis, etc., the Defendant paid the insurance money by deeming that there was no causal relationship between the breach of duty of disclosure

E. After all, as shown in the attached list 1, B died of Madokam on September 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant insurance accident”), around 18:00, and the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 of the insurance money due to the instant insurance accident.

F. Meanwhile, the insurance clause of this case is a contractor.