The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below determined as to the ground of appeal No. 1, as long as Article 651 of the Commercial Act provides for the existence and effect of the duty of disclosure and its effect, it is difficult for an insurance policyholder to be aware of it as a matter of course because it is individually determined in relation to the content of each insurance contract in which certain matters are subject to the duty of disclosure, and therefore it is difficult for the insurance contractor G, the insurer, as an insurance solicitor of the defendant, should have explained in detail that "the fact that the net driver's regular error and error affects the terms and conditions of acceptance of each insurance contract of this case, and should be notified to the defendant, and if not notified, the insurance contract may not be terminated and the insurance money may not be paid." As long as G did not fulfill its duty of disclosure as to "matters related to the driving of Lao," the insurer of each insurance contract of this case cannot terminate each insurance contract of this case on the ground that the plaintiff violated the duty

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “important content of an insurance contract” subject to the duty to explain, or by violating the Supreme Court precedents, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. In full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined as to the second ground of appeal, based on the following facts: “The matters concerning the Plaintiff’s operation of the “otoba” (i.e.,, “the fact that the instant special terms and conditions should be added in a case where the deceased drive the Obaba periodically,” and whether the deceased drive the Oba.