Whether a policyholder may cancel the contract after the death of the policyholder where the policyholder has concealed the medical history.

In a case where a medical doctor with a mid-term period of not less than 40 days has medical capacity of bedclothes and pharmacologic, but the insurance company responded to the fact that the policyholder had not been treated for not less than one week within the last three years without notifying the policyholder's health status in writing at the time of concluding the insurance contract, in a form prescribed in the insurance contract at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, and that the policyholder had responded to the fact that he had not been treated for not less than one week within the last three years, even if the policyholder died on February 11, 1982 after the contract was concluded, as long as the contract was concluded to allow the termination of the contract, barring special circumstances such as having been aware, at the time of the contract, that the Defendant insurance company knew of such fact, or had

Article 651 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Korea Life Insurance Corporation

Jeonju District Court Decision 81 Gohap293

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 the amount of KRW 1,50,000, and to the plaintiff 3,4, and5 each amount of KRW 1,00,000 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the following day of the delivery of a copy of this case to the date of complete payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution.

On July 31, 1980, the deceased non-party 1 and the policyholder non-party 1, the insured non-party 5, and the beneficiary's survival are non-party 1, the death time of death, and the non-party 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and 22,080,000,000,000,000,000,000, and 18,000,000 by December 11, 1981, there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiffs' assertion is unfair since the non-party 1, the policyholder of this case, was deceased and sought payment of insurance money in accordance with the insurance policy as the legal inheritor. The defendant argued that the non-party 2's insurance contract of this case was terminated due to the non-party 1's failure to comply with the above duty of disclosure. The defendant first did not know whether the insurance contract of this case remains effective or not, Eul No. 2's No. 3, Eul No. 5, Eul No. 7, Eul's evidence No. 8, Eul's evidence No. 9, Eul's evidence No. 9, Eul's evidence No. 9-1, 2 (Notice of Ruling No. 1) and the above fact that the non-party 1's testimony and pleading had no effect on the non-party 1's life insurance contract of this case, and that the non-party 1 was not informed of the above fact that the non-party 1 had no effect on the insurance accident of this case's life insurance contract of this case within the insurance period of this case.

According to the above facts, the above facts revealed that the above deceased, who is a policyholder, had symptoms of heavy wind and received medical treatment for more than 40 days as above, are extremely important in measuring the risk of life of the above deceased, and the insurance contract of this case where he is the policyholder, which is to pay a certain amount of insurance money at the time of his death. Therefore, in this case where there is no proof that the insurance contract of this case is a special circumstance such as that the defendant company knew of such fact at the time of the contract or was not aware of such fact due to gross negligence, the above dispute of the defendant company, which caused the defendant company's failure to notify at the time of the contract, should be lawfully terminated by its declaration of intention to terminate the contract, is well-grounded.

In this case, since the insurance contract of this case was legally terminated on March 7, 1981, the claim of the plaintiffs in this case, which is based on the premise that the above insurance contract remains valid, is no longer reasonable, and therefore, it is dismissed. Accordingly, the original judgment is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal against this decision is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are borne by the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)