보험금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows: (a) addition to the attached insurance contract to the attached Form; and (b) addition of the following 2. Paragraph (2) after the 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance, other than adding the following 2. Paragraph (1) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the operation of a two-wheeled automobile constitutes a violation of Article 652 of the Commercial Act and Article 653 of the Commercial Act, not a violation of Article 652 of the Commercial Act, and Article 17 of the General Terms and Conditions. The Defendant’s notice of termination of the insurance contract of this case is illegal as it is based on a violation of Article 652 of the Commercial Act and Article 17 of the General Terms and Conditions, and the termination right based on a violation of Article 653 of the Commercial Act cannot be exercised as long as the period of limitation has already expired. However, as seen earlier, if the Plaintiff continued to operate a two-wheeled automobile at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, the Defendant did not enter into the insurance contract of this case or did not take over the insurance premium of this case at least. The Plaintiff, the insured, is deemed to have been aware that its continuous operation of a two-wheeled automobile constitutes a significant increase in risk of occurrence of an insurance accident. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 657(1) of the Commercial Act is unlawful.