The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act provides that if the policyholder or the insured becomes aware of the fact that the risk of an accident has been significantly changed or increased during the insurance period, the insurer shall, without delay, notify the insurer, and if he/she neglects to do so, the insurer may cancel the insurance within one month from the date on which he/she becomes aware of such fact, and "the fact that the risk of an accident, which is prescribed as the object of the duty to notify, has been significantly changed or increased" means the fact that the insurer did not enter into the insurance contract or that at least the premium might not have been subscribed for the insurance if there exists such change

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on November 27, 1998, and Supreme Court Decisions 98Da32564, Oct. 27, 201; 2009Da81227, Oct. 27, 201). 2, 201, the lower court determined that the instant mutual aid agreement cannot be terminated pursuant to Article 11(3)2 of the instant mutual aid agreement on the ground that the removal work performed by the Plaintiff on the first floor of the instant building cannot be readily concluded as “when the structure of the building is altered, reconstructed, or repaired for 15 or more days continuously,” which is the subject of the duty to notify after the mutual aid agreement under Article 10(1)3 of the instant mutual aid agreement.

3. However, according to the records, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the instant fire accident on July 15, 201, and based on the refusal to pay the mutual aid money and termination of the contract.