2. The plaintiff's ancillary claims are all dismissed in this court.

(원고의 항소이유는 제1심에서의 주장과 크게 다르지 않고, 제1심에 제출된 증거에다가 이 법원에 제출된 증거를 보태어 보더라도 제1심의 사실인정과 판단은 정당하다). ◎ 제1심 판결 8쪽 5행 마지막에 다음과 같이 추가한다.

“The determination of hospitalization shall be made after a physician, who is an expert, under consideration of the conditions of the patient’s disease at the time of hospitalization, the low-quality disease, etc., and the determination of such expert shall be respected unless there are special circumstances to reject the credibility of the determination.”

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. 1) Determination on the claim for termination of the instant insurance contract constitutes continuous contract based on trust between the insurer that accepts the insurance and the policyholder. Although Defendant C received a high-amount amount of insurance money from the Plaintiff and received hospitalized treatment, the trust relationship between the parties, which forms the basis for the existence of the instant insurance contract, was destroyed. As such, the instant insurance contract was lawfully terminated by delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of September 19, 2018. 2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground of the judgment of the first instance court, which cited under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, is in particular,

A. In full view of Paragraph 2 (2) (No. 7-5 and 8-10), it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant C pretended to, or was hospitalized in, a disease, and received unnecessary hospital treatment due to ice.

The evidence submitted alone alone is difficult to maintain the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, which are the basis of the instant insurance contract, as they were destroyed.