Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following to the 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 20
【3) In the event that a policyholder or the insured fails to notify a material fact intentionally or by gross negligence at the time of the termination of the insurance contract, or makes a false notification, the insurer may terminate the contract within one month from the date of knowing the fact (main sentence of Article 651 of the Commercial Act). Moreover, the right to terminate the insurance contract in question is a right to form a contract, and the period of limitation is a limitation period, and whether the limitation period has lapsed is an ex officio investigation by the court, and thus, the court’s argument should be examined and determined ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da77638, May 14, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, even if, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the duty of disclosure on the conclusion of the insurance contract in question at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract in question, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the insurance contract on the ground of violation of each of the above duty of disclosure cannot be asserted separately from the Plaintiff’s application for cancellation of its duplicate.
Furthermore, in the preparatory brief dated March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the king’s disease at the time of the purchase of the instant insurance policy, even though the Defendant had the sick history of the king, such as knee knee knee knee knee knee, verte snee snee, verte, tension, and an unhero
In addition, the defendant has taken out a large number of guaranteed insurance in 2005 and 2008 and has high amount.