1. With respect to the diagnosis of the closure cancer of the Gangwon-do Hospital on January 22, 2013, the annexed list is between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s spouse B entered into a “non-distribution-based cancer insurance (Hi1204)” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the content as indicated in the attached list as the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The main content of the instant insurance contract is to pay KRW 15 million in the event the insured was diagnosed with cancer, and KRW 15 million in the event the insured was diagnosed with cancer.

B. At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, the Defendant and B responded to the question of “within the latest three months whether a doctor has received medical practice such as the following (the fact that he/she had received the following medical practice through a medical examination or examination within the latest three months)” among the obligations to inform prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and reply to the question of “no matter whether he/she has undergone an additional examination by a doctor through a medical examination or examination within the latest one year.”

C. B was diagnosed as waste cancer at the Gangnam-gu Hospital around January 2013.

Therefore, although the defendant claimed the insurance money under the insurance contract of this case against the plaintiff, on March 6, 2013, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the termination of the insurance contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's breach of duty of disclosure, and the

8. The defendant was served.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) was presented by the defendant through a tuberculosis or non-specific tuberculosis cT examination before the conclusion of the insurance contract in this case, and the above circumstances were important matters to be notified to the plaintiff, the insurer, despite which the defendant did not notify it. Accordingly, since the plaintiff lawfully terminated the insurance contract in this case in accordance with the pertinent terms and conditions of the insurance contract in this case, the plaintiff's obligation to pay the insurance money under the insurance contract in this case is the duty of the plaintiff.