The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined that the instant insurance contract was lawfully terminated on March 20, 201 according to the Defendant’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s unpaid insurance premium, and that the instant insurance contract was legally terminated on March 20, 2011, and later, the Defendant’s declaration of termination on June 19, 2013, by failing to notify the insured’s liver diagnosis at the time of the Plaintiff’s offer of a reinstatement contract, and that the said reinstatement

On the other hand, the court below determined that the defendant did not have the duty to explain to the defendant or the defendant fulfilled the duty to explain to the plaintiff, on the grounds as stated in its holding, that the contract may be terminated at the time of the plaintiff's offer of the above reinstatement

2. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the termination and restoration of an insurance contract or the duty to explain the insurance clause, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.