1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Even if the plaintiff alleged by the plaintiff violated the duty of disclosure, since the deceased suffered from a disease already treated, the causal relationship between the violation of the duty of disclosure and the death of the deceased was severed.

Therefore, according to the instant insurance contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the death benefit amounting to KRW 150 million.

At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, the Defendant’s alleged deceased violated the obligation to notify material facts, such as treatment power, etc., to the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed that there exists no causal relationship between the breach of such duty of disclosure

Therefore, since the insurance contract of this case was lawfully terminated, it is not liable for the payment of death benefit to the plaintiff.

Judgment

The insurer may not terminate the insurance contract on the ground of the above misrepresentation in accordance with the proviso of Article 655 of the Commercial Act when it was proved that the violation of the duty of disclosure was not affected by the occurrence of the insured events, namely, that the insured's occurrence of the insured events was not due to the fact that the policyholder was not so notified or was not so notified. However, the burden of proving that there was no causation between the occurrence of the insured events and the occurrence of the above breach of the duty of disclosure is the policyholder.

As such, if there is room to determine the existence of the causal relationship even if it is prohibited, the above proviso should not be applied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da28259, Oct. 23, 1992; 2013Da91405, Mar. 13, 2014). Taking full account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and evidence, supra, as seen earlier, based on the foregoing legal doctrine and the evidence.