1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court's explanation of this case is as follows: "A city" under Section 11, Section 18, Section 11, Section 18, Section 4, Section 9, Section 5, Section 4, Section 4, Section 4, Section 4, Section 4, Section 4, Section 9, and the plaintiff's argument that was made in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following determination, and therefore, it is citing it as is,

【Supplementary Use】

2. The plaintiff asserted that the deceased did not receive a final diagnosis or treatment or medication as a urology within 5 years from the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case. At the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, the plaintiff asked that there was no medical diagnosis or treatment as a urology while preparing an application for the contract of this case. At the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, the blood urology measured before urology for 7 years or more is not an important matter in the conclusion of the insurance contract, and it is difficult to see that the deceased did not notify intentionally or by gross negligence. Thus, the deceased did not violate the terms of the insurance contract of this case and the duty of disclosure stipulated in Article 651

Even if there is no causation between the deceased’s breach of duty of disclosure and the deceased’s death, the termination of the insurance contract by the Defendant on the ground of the deceased’s breach is invalid.

Even if the Defendant’s termination right due to the deceased’s breach of duty of disclosure was created.

Even if the defendant received a copy of the medical record of the deceased on or around July 2014, and at that time, the defendant became aware of the diagnosis of the deceased's urology. Since the defendant notified the termination of the insurance contract only on September 15, 2014 after the lapse of one month, the termination of the contract with the lapse of the exclusion period is invalid.

Therefore, the defendant shall, therefore, be the deceased under the insurance contract of this case.