1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

3...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination under paragraph (2) as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added in the trial as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with

On March 12, 2018, when the lawsuit was pending in the first instance trial, the co-defendant A of the first instance trial died and the Defendants took over the lawsuit in the first instance trial, and all of the parts written “Defendant A” in the judgment of the first instance are considered to be “the deceased A”.

13. 1-2 Myeon 1-2 Myeon 100,000 won are as follows:

“ Therefore, the Plaintiff shall divide the total sum of KRW 50 million to the Defendants, who are the deceased’s successors, in the inheritance ratio, KRW 25 million, and KRW 1 million to Defendant B, respectively, in proportion to the inheritance ratio.”

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. In relation to the principal claim, the result of the instant health examination is presumed to be an important matter pursuant to Article 651-2 of the Commercial Act, as it falls under the inquire note 7 of the questionnaire. Defendant B and the network A did not know of the result of the said health examination, which is an important matter, and did not notify it. Therefore, the termination of the instant insurance contract on the ground of the breach of duty of disclosure is lawful and effective. (2) Determination on the grounds of the breach of duty of disclosure under Article 651 of the Commercial Act requires a policyholder or the insured’s intentional or gross negligence on the part of the insured.

Therefore, in order for the Plaintiff to lawfully and effectively terminate the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the existence of the results of the instant health examination and the fact that the results of the said health examination constituted an important matter subject to duty of disclosure.