Mez Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Filiwon, Attorneys Choi Jung-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Desiring, Attorney Park In-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 26, 2010

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) 27,068,060 won with 20% interest per annum from August 27, 2010 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

In the principal lawsuit: It is confirmed that there is no obligation to pay insurance proceeds based on an insurance contract indicated in the attached table to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

Counterclaim: This provision shall also apply to the Disposition of Paragraph (1).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

(a) Conclusion of insurance contracts;

(1) On June 29, 2007, Nonparty 2, the Defendant’s mother Nonparty 1’s mother, concluded a non-distribution well-being insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) on behalf of the Defendant with the insured as the Defendant on behalf of Nonparty 1.

(2) At the time of the instant insurance contract, Nonparty 2 responded to “Non-Party 2’s question whether the diagnosis was conducted by a doctor through a diagnosis and examination within the last three months, or whether the result was treated, hospitalized, operated, administered, or administered,” as indicated in the “matters of obligation to notify the contract before the instant insurance contract.”

(b) Terms and conditions of insurance contracts;

(1) The ordinary terms and conditions applicable to the instant insurance contract (hereinafter “instant ordinary terms and conditions”) provide for the duty of disclosure as follows:

Article 24 (Duty to Notify Pre-Contract)

The contractor, the insured, or their agents shall be informed of the fact that they are aware of the matters asked in the written application (including the health examination time if they undergo a health examination) at the time of application.

Article 26 (Effect of Violation of Obligation to Notify)

The Company may terminate this contract, regardless of the occurrence of damages, in the following cases:

(1) Where the contractor, the insured, or his/her agent violates Article 24 intentionally or by gross negligence and his/her duty is an important matter.

(2) On the other hand, with respect to the damages covered by the Special Terms and Conditions of Guarantee of Hospitalization Daily Allowances, the Special Terms and Conditions of Guarantee of Hospitalization Medical Expenses (Ⅱ), and the Special Terms and Conditions of Guarantee of Medical Expenses for Patients (Ⅱ), which apply to the instant insurance contract (hereinafter “Special Terms and Conditions of Guarantee of Disease”).

Special Terms and Conditions of Guarantee of Disease Hospitalization Allowances

Article 1 (Compensation for Loss)

The Company shall pay to beneficiaries the daily amount of this special terms and conditions as stated in the insurance policy (insurance policy) for each day of hospitalization within the maximum of 180 days from the date of initial hospitalization when the insured has received treatment by being hospitalized to a hospital or a member due to a disease which occurred during the insurance period of this special terms and conditions stated in the insurance policy (insurance policy) of this special terms and conditions.

Medical Expenses for Hospitalization (Ⅱ) Covered Special Clause

Article 1 (Compensation for Loss)

The Company is bound to compensate the following expenses for hospital or hospital(Ⅱ) in accordance with this special clause if the insured under this special clause of insurance (Ⅱ) is hospitalized in a hospital or hospital due to a disease that occurred during the insurance period specified in the insurance policy (insurance policy) of this special clause.

Medical Care Costs (Ⅱ) Cover Clause

Article 1 (Compensation for Loss)

The Company is bound to compensate the following medical expenses (Ⅱ) in accordance with this Special Clause if the insured of this Special Terms and Conditions of Insurance (II) is treated as a hospital or member due to a disease that occurred during the insurance period specified in the insurance policy (insurance policy) of this Special Terms and Conditions of Insurance.

(3) In addition, the policy of cancer diagnosis, which applies to the instant insurance contract, and the special policy of cancer operation expense guarantee (hereinafter “the instant policy of cancer guarantee”) provide for the commencement date of the guarantee of cancer as follows:

Terms and Conditions of Contract for Cancer Guarantee

Article 1 (Invalidation of Contracts)

3. In addition to the matters provided for in Article 2 (Invalidation of Contracts) of the General Provisions concerning Disease-Related Contracts, in cases where the insured is diagnosed and confirmed as "mars other than those prescribed in Article 4" before the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of guarantee for cancer prescribed in Article 3 (2) from the date of the contract, this contract shall be null and void and shall return the premiums already paid.

Article 3 (Compensation for Loss)

After the commencement date of guarantee for cancer other than other skin cancer, thotho cancer, and other thothotho cancer, and other thothotho cancer, thothotho cancer, other thothotho cancer, and thothothotho cancer, or thothothotho cancer, which are listed in the insurance policy (insurance policy) of this special terms and conditions of insurance coverage, the Company shall be bound in accordance with this special terms and conditions.

In the case of paragraph (1), the starting date of guarantee for cancer other than skin cancer shall be the day following the 90th day after the insurance contract date of this Special Terms and Conditions if the insured's coverage is 15 or more years old on the basis of the insurance contract date, including the date of the insurance contract, and the starting date of guarantee for skin cancer, internal cancer, and bordering species shall be the contract date.

IV.(Definition and diagnosis determination of cancer and upper cancer, and of boundary specifications)

기타피부암 이외의 암 또는 상피내암, 기타피부암 또는 경계성 종양의 진단확정은 해부병리 또는 임상병리의 전문의사자격증을 가진 자에 의하여 내려져야 하며, 이 진단은 조직(fixed tissue)검사, 미세침흡인검사(fine needle aspiration biopsy) 또는 혈액(hemic system)검사에 대한 현미경 소견을 기초로 하여야 합니다.

Terms and Conditions of Cover for Cancer Operation Expenses

Article 1 (Invalidation of Contracts)

3. In addition to the matters prescribed in Article 2 of the General Provisions in the Terms and Conditions related to Diseases, in cases where the insured is diagnosed and confirmed as "a cancer other than other skin cancer" prescribed in Article 4 prior to the date preceding the date of commencement of guarantee for cancer prescribed in Article 3 (2) from the date of the contract, this contract shall be null and void and shall be refunded, and the

Article 3 (Compensation for Loss)

The Company shall, after the date of commencement of guarantee for cancer other than other skin cancer, and after the date of commencement of guarantee for thothotho cancer, other thothotho cancer, other thothothotho cancer, and other thothothothotho cancer, other thothothotho cancer, and thothothothothotho or borderal thothothothothotho, which are listed in the insurance policy (insurance Policy) of this special terms and conditions of insurance coverage and which

In the case of paragraph (1), the starting date of guarantee for cancer other than skin cancer shall be the day following the 90th day after the insurance contract date of this Special Terms and Conditions if the insured's coverage is 15 or more years old on the basis of the insurance contract date, including the date of the insurance contract, and the starting date of guarantee for skin cancer, internal cancer, and bordering species shall be the contract date.

IV.(Definition and diagnosis determination of cancer and upper cancer, and of boundary specifications)

기타피부암 이외의 암 또는 상피내암, 기타피부암 또는 경계성 종양의 진단확정은 해부병리 또는 임상병리의 전문의사자격증을 가진 자에 의하여 내려져야 하며, 이 진단은 조직(fixed tissue)검사, 미세침흡인검사(fine needle aspiration biopsy) 또는 혈액(hemic system)검사에 대한 현미경 소견을 기초로 하여야 합니다.

(c) Particulars on occurrence of insurance accidents;

(1) Around June 2007, the Defendant: (a) sought a view that three of the dongdong-dong-dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Council members was put to a dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si in the early 12 June 2007; and (b) sought to be put to a subdivision within the Seoul Asan Hospital-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si on June 12, 2007. Nonparty 4 diagnosed the Defendant as a thyrodoss and decided to conduct

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant was subject to an indeption test (Fine NEsy, FNAB) with respect to two parts of the upper upper upper upper upper line on the same day. On June 19, 2007, the Defendant was subject to an indeption test on the first instance line. On June 21, 2007, two parts of the first upper line leaves of the first instance line were positive (Twon-loaking Nodules in the upper line). On June 21, 2007, the lower court was readable on the upper line’s upper line, and the lower part of the abandonment on the left-hand line was modeled by the evidence of the indeption type of the upper line.

(3) Accordingly, on July 3, 2007, Nonparty 4, based on each of the above results of the examination conducted by the Defendant, decided to conduct an unsatisfying test under the invitation of satisfying on the left-hand 5mm of abandonment. On September 7, 2007, the Defendant underwent an unsatisfying test under the inducement of satisfying on the left-hand side of abandonment.

(4) On September 13, 2007, medical doctors and non-party 5 of the Seoul Asan Hospital read the above decision of abandonment as a dual carnoma on the left-hand side of the Aryon. On October 1, 2007, the internal decentralization and non-party 4 assessed the above decision as a dual car species on the basis of the results of the above market reading on October 1, 2007, and recommended the defendant to undergo an operation from the Ebal caroa and PTC.

(5) Accordingly, on October 11, 2007, the Defendant was admitted to undergo an operation on November 7, 2007, after the Defendant was admitted to the Esyptive surgery from the medical personnel, who was admitted to the Esyptive surgery. However, on November 8, 2007, the Defendant determined that the Defendant was pregnant and the medical personnel was to perform an operation after childbirth, and discharged the Defendant on November 8, 2007.

(6) After the Defendant gave birth on July 2, 2008, on September 23, 2008, the Defendant was hospitalized in the Evinasium of the Seoul Agynam Hospital on September 23, 2008, and was discharged on September 24, 2008 from the crypary crypary crypary and the central crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary, and on September 26, 2008, the Seoul Agysan Hospital path and the non-party 6 was crypump cryp

(7) After that, the Defendant was hospitalized in the internal branch of the Seoul Asan Hospital from January 12, 2009 to January 13, 2009, and received treatment for radiation isotope.

(d) Cancellation of the insurance contract.

On August 7, 2009, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the insurance money under the instant insurance contract on the ground of the diagnosis and treatment of the AP cancer, but notified the Defendant on September 7, 2009 that the Plaintiff terminated the instant insurance contract on the ground of the breach of duty of disclosure.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 8, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3-6, Gap evidence 8, 10, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 5-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for the payment of insurance money;

A. As to the violation of duty of disclosure

(1) The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was diagnosed on June 12, 2007 before the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and that the Defendant, the policyholder of Nonparty 1 or Nonparty 2, the insured, did not notify the Plaintiff of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and that the Plaintiff terminated the instant insurance contract on the grounds of breach of duty of disclosure.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not know that the Defendant was diagnosed as the policyholder Nonparty 1 or the agent, and the Defendant did not know of the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed as the policyholder, and the Defendant did not have any opportunity to notify the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed as the Aboard Ship as above, and thus did not have any intention or gross negligence to Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and the Defendant.

(2) Determination:

In order to establish a violation of the duty of disclosure in an insurance contract, the duty of disclosure must be intentionally or by gross negligence on the part of the duty of disclosure, and it refers to the knowledge that the fact is an important fact to be notified, knowing the fact that the intention in this context is to be notified, and the gross negligence is to be notified, and even though there was a knowledge of the fact that the fact should be notified, it refers to the fact that there was a mistake in the decision of the importance of the fact or an important fact to be notified due to a substantial negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da27971 delivered on December 23, 1996). In order for the insurer to cancel an insurance contract on the ground of a violation of the duty of disclosure, the policyholder or the insured must prove the fact that the policyholder or the insured failed to perform the duty of disclosure by intention or gross negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da

Therefore, we examine whether Nonparty 2, a policyholder, or Nonparty 1, who was represented by Nonparty 1, was aware of the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed A, or whether the Defendant, the insured, was given an opportunity to notify the Defendant of the fact that he was diagnosed A, on June 12, 2007, the Defendant was diagnosed A at the Seoul Asan Hospital, and Nonparty 2 responded to the purport that, at the time of the instant insurance contract, the Defendant did not have been diagnosed by doctors within the last three months, through a medical examination and examination. However, in light of the following facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the above fact of recognition was intentional or gross negligence, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 10 and 7 and 8 (including the number of Nonparty 1)’s testimony, and the purport of Nonparty 3’s testimony, Nonparty 2, who was residing in Busan, recommended Nonparty 1 to subscribe to cancer insurance through Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 1 asked Nonparty 2 to subscribe to the insurance policy because he did not need to do so. ② Nonparty 2 did not know of the fact that Nonparty 1 did not know of the fact that it was necessary for Nonparty 1 to do so on behalf of Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2 did not know of the fact that it was necessary for Nonparty 1 to do so, and Nonparty 1 and the Defendant did not know of the fact that it was necessary for Nonparty 2 to do so at the time of this case’s insurance contract, and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 did not know of the fact that it was necessary to notify Nonparty 1 to the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant did not know of the fact that it was necessary for Nonparty 1 to do so.

As to this, the plaintiff alleged that the non-party 1 or the non-party 2 had a duty to clearly confirm the "matters to be notified to the defendant," and that there was gross negligence in failing to comply with the obligation to notify the defendant, which is the insurer, so it cannot be viewed that the policyholder has a duty of care to confirm in advance the matters to be asked by the insurer to the insured in advance (the insurer has a duty of care to confirm in advance to the insured) and as seen above, although it was known that the fact that the non-party 1 or the non-party 2 has to notify the insured of the importance of the fact, it does not include the case where the non-party 1 or the non-party 2 did not know that it was an important fact that the decision of importance of the fact should be made or that it was an important fact that should be notified due to a significant negligence, and the plaintiff's above assertion does not include the case where he did not know the fact itself.

B. As to the violation of duty to notify

The plaintiff asserts that the insurance contract of this case was terminated pursuant to Article 652 of the Commercial Act, since the defendant, as the insured, knew of the fact that the risk of the accident was significantly changed or increased during the insurance period under Article 652 ( state 1) of the Commercial Act, as long as he knew of the fact that the insurance contract of this case was concluded even after the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, he did not notify the plaintiff of the fact that the insured was diagnosed as Apam cancer.

On the other hand, the change or increase in risk that the insured has a duty to notify under Article 652 of the Commercial Act should occur during the existence of the insurance contract. As seen earlier, it cannot be viewed as subject to the duty to notify under Article 652 of the Commercial Act since the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case is before the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, and it cannot be deemed as subject to the duty to notify under Article 652 of the Commercial Act, and it cannot be deemed as subject to the risk of an insurance accident only because it constitutes an insurance accident and cannot be deemed as subject to the risk

C. As to the invalidity due to a defect in signature consent

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the insurance contract of this case is null and void because there was no written consent of the defendant who is the insured at the time of the insurance contract.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the insurance contract of this case is not an accident insurance but a disease insurance, it cannot be applied to Articles 739 and 731 (1) of the Commercial Act.

(2) Determination:

Article 731 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event shall obtain the written consent of the other person at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, is a mandatory law and thus an insurance contract concluded in violation of this provision is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da37084, Nov. 22, 1996). In addition, Article 739 of the Commercial Act provides that "the provisions concerning life insurance except Article 732 shall apply mutatis mutandis to an accident insurance". Thus, an insurance contract which covers another person's injury as an insured event shall also obtain the written consent of the other person at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract,

However, as a risk guaranteed in an accident insurance, bodily injury refers to bodily injury caused by an unexpected accident from outside. Thus, the cause of the accident refers to the act that the cause of the accident acts from outside of the body of the insured, and is excluded from the time of internal cause such as physical disease (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da27579, Aug. 21, 2001). Thus, since there is no provision in the Commercial Act regarding an insurance contract of which another person's disease is a peril insured, the validity of an insurance contract shall not be affected even if the other person's written consent is not obtained.

Therefore, as to whether the insurance contract of this case constitutes an accident insurance, the special terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case, which are applied to the insurance accident called the defendant's Athroid cancer diagnosis and treatment, do not conflict between the parties, and the fact that the insurance accident stipulated in each of the above special terms and conditions is a disease or cancer diagnosis confirmation. As seen earlier, at least the part of the insurance contract of this case, which is applicable to the insurance accident called the defendant's Athroid cancer diagnosis and treatment, is an accident of another person's disease, not another person's injury. Thus, the above security does not apply to the above provisions of the Commercial Act, and thus, it does not require the defendant's written consent at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, so even if the defendant's consent was not obtained, the above part of the insurance contract of this case cannot

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case is null and void without obtaining the defendant's written consent is without merit.

D. As to the invalidity due to diagnosis confirmation prior to the commencement date of guarantee

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, according to Article 1 of the Special Contract for Cancer Guarantee of this case, if the insured's diagnosis becomes final and conclusive as cancer from the date of the contract to the date preceding the date of the commencement of guarantee of cancer, the insurance contract is null and void, and since the date of commencement of guarantee of the Special Contract for Cancer Guarantee of this case is September 27, 2007 after the expiration of 90 days from the date of the insurance contract, which is before the date of commencement of guarantee, the defendant's Aamamam diagnosis has become final and conclusive on September 7, 2007, the part

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that: (a) on September 7, 2007, the Plaintiff’s assertion was the date when the Plaintiff conducted an unsatisfying test by inducing the early wave; (b) on October 1, 2007, when the State physician diagnosed the Asatisfy cancer, it was not only the date of the presumption diagnosis; and (c) on the contrary, it was rather the date of the presumption diagnosis; (d) on September 26, 2008, the date when the Asatisfy was finally confirmed and confirmed as the Asatisfy cancer; and (b) there was no insurer’s delivery of the instant insurance clause to Nonparty 1 at the time of the instant insurance contract; and (e) there was no indication and explanation of the key contents of the terms and conditions to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant insurance contract; and (c) on the contrary, the Plaintiff cannot claim the commencement date of guarantee pursuant to the instant cancer special terms and conditions as the insurance contract.

(2) Determination:

Pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the instant cancer Guarantee Special Clause, the term "the date of guarantee, including the date of the insurance contract, shall be the following day from the 90th day after the date of the insurance contract (Therefore, the date of guarantee against the defendant shall be September 27, 2007, which is the day after the 90th day from June 29, 2007, which is the date of the insurance contract). On September 7, 2007, the defendant was subject to an unsatisfy test under the direction of satisfy, and on September 13, 2007, medical doctors and non-party 5 read the above satisfying the above satch on September 13, 2007, as seen earlier (the date of conducting the satisfy inspection, which is the date when the plaintiff asserted on September 7, 2007, and Byung and doctors read it).

However, in light of the purport of Article 4(5) of the instant Amateur Clause, which is acknowledged earlier, since the confirmation diagnosis of cancer is merely based on the present opinion about an infertility test, it cannot be readily concluded that the result of the infertility test has reached the conclusion that it was immediately a final diagnosis of cancer, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to when the diagnosis of the Defendant A was determined, as to when the diagnosis of the Defendant A was determined, ① on October 1, 2007, the doctor non-party 4 assessed the Defendant’s above-mentioned diagnosis as the type A, on the basis of the reading reading of the Plaintiff, on November 14, 2007, entered the diagnosis only as a presumption diagnosis, and the doctor non-party 7 of the Seoul ASEAN Hospital’s doctor non-party 9 was also presumed to be the Defendant’s final diagnosis of the disease No. 90, which was conducted on October 2, 2008, based on the Defendant’s final diagnosis of the disease No. 9, and the Defendant’s opinion on the result of the above diagnosis of the disease No. 2, which was conducted on September 26, 2008.

Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff on the premise that Gap's confirmation diagnosis against the defendant was made before September 27, 2007, which is the date of guarantee under the above cancer guarantee special terms and conditions of this case, is without merit. Article 3 (2) of the above cancer guarantee special terms and conditions of this case provides that the starting date of guarantee of cancer shall be 90 days including the date of insurance contract. According to Article 656 of the Commercial Act, the insurer's liability shall commence from the date of receiving the initial insurance premium unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Thus, Article 3 (2) of the above terms and conditions of this case provides that the insurer shall not specify the time of commencement of liability differently from the general terms and conditions of the Commercial Act, and it shall not be deemed that the insurer has an important duty to explain and explain the terms and conditions of the insurance contract in violation of Article 204Da26164, 26171, Dec. 9, 2005, the insurer who is engaged in the insurance business under the above provisions of Article 638-13 of the Commercial Act or its subscription terms and conditions.

E. As to the invalidity due to the objective determination of the insured events

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the insurance contract of this case is null and void in accordance with Article 644 Section 2 of the Commercial Act since the insurance accident occurred at the time of the insurance contract of this case.

(2) Determination:

However, the above facts are not sufficient to recognize that the defendant had already suffered Aboard cancer at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above facts have already occurred at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit (In light of the facts acknowledged above, the defendant was entirely aware that Aboard Cancer occurred at the time of the insurance contract of this case, so even if Aboard Cancer occurred to the defendant at the time of the insurance contract of this case, even if Aboard Cancer occurred at the time of the insurance contract of this case, the insurance contract of this case cannot be deemed null and void pursuant to the proviso of Article 644 of the Commercial Act, and the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be seen as invalid by

3. Scope of insurance money to be paid.

In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the insurance money that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff according to the insurance contract of this case after being diagnosed with Athroid cancer and being treated, ① 300,000 won per day of hospitalization of disease, ② 5,00,000 won per cancer surgery, ③ cancer diagnosis, ③ 20,000 won, ④ Ⅱ Ⅱ 1,224,860 won for hospitalization of disease, ④ Ⅱ 543,200 won for hospital hospital treatment, ⑤ Ⅱ 543,200 won for hospital hospital treatment.

On the other hand, the defendant received hospital treatment from October 23, 2008 to October 17, 2008 due to acute organ infection. Accordingly, the defendant is the plaintiff as to the total amount of 574,500 won, including the insurance money to be paid by the plaintiff according to the insurance contract of this case, ① 250,000 won per hospital hospital hospital, ② 282,920 won per hospital hospital hospital, ③ 41,580 won per hospital hospital hospital, ③ 41,580 won per hospital hospital.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the insurance money of KRW 27,642,560 (27,068,060 + insurance money of KRW 574,50 due to Class A cancer + insurance money of KRW 574,500), which the Defendant seeks after the payment date of insurance money, 27,068,060, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the date of delivery of the counterclaim, which the Defendant seeks after the payment date of insurance money, from August 27, 2010 to the day of full payment.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the plaintiff's counterclaim seeking confirmation of the absence of the insurance contract payment obligation on the premise that the insurance contract of this case was terminated or invalid is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)

(1) Article 652 (Notice of Alteration or Increase of Risks and Termination of Contract) (1) If, during the insurance period, the policyholder or the insured becomes aware of the fact that the risk of the occurrence of the accident is significantly changed or increased, the insurer shall, without delay, notify the insurer thereof. If it has been neglected to do so, the insurer may terminate the contract only one month after becoming aware of such fact.

2) Article 644 (Effect of Preexisting Insured Events) If an insured events have already occurred or are not likely to occur at the time of the insurance contract, the contract shall become null and void: Provided, That this shall not apply where both parties and the insured have not been aware of it.