1. On July 21, 2016, Nonparty C is based on each insurance contract indicated in the attached Form with respect to an accident that died due to a traffic accident.

1. Under the foundation facts, each of the following facts is without dispute between the parties, or acknowledged as being based upon the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-1-3, evidence 1-2-1-3, evidence 3-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 4, evidence 5-1 through 3, evidence 6, evidence 7-1, evidence 7-2, and evidence 8-1 through 3, and there is no counter-proof.

C (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) entered into each insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant insurance contracts”) with the content as indicated in the separate sheet in which the Plaintiff and the insured are the deceased, as shown in the separate sheet.

B. However, at the time of entering into each of the instant insurance contracts, the deceased’s occupation was an insurance solicitor belonging to the Plaintiff Company, so notified, and concluded each of the instant insurance contracts.

C. However, on December 1, 2009, the Deceased was dismissed from an insurance solicitor of the Plaintiff Company, and thereafter, from around 2012, the Deceased began with transportation business and operated 25 tons of dump trucks.

On July 21, 2016, the Deceased was driving a dump truck at around 03:07, and stopped on the side due to breakdown at a point of 278.7km in Seoul, while driving a dump truck at the direction of Busan in order to stop on the side and make a replacement. As the vehicle driving the five-lane is loaded on the left side of the dump truck, the Deceased died from brain damage and dump damage on the spot due to shock.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). E.

At the time of the deceased’s death, only the Defendant was the deceased’s children.

F. On November 9, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The Plaintiff terminated each of the instant insurance contracts on the ground that the deceased did not notify the Plaintiff of the risk of the occurrence of an accident due to a change in occupation after the contract was concluded, and the insurance money shall be paid in proportion to the amount of compensation.” On December 5, 2016 and on June, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant according to the amount of occupational water supply in proportion to the amount of proportion.