1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant Global Financial Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Global Financial Sales”) is the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or written by the following paragraph (2). Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

(a) from the last 7th sentence of the first instance judgment to the 8th 10th sentence are as follows:

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) as at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, B was old at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, if the Plaintiff knew of such fact, it would have refused to conclude the instant insurance contract itself; (b) the Plaintiff’s amount of damages caused by Defendant A’s illegal act should be considered as the total amount of the insurance proceeds that constitute a quid pro quo balance between the guaranteed insurance premium and the quid pro quo; and (c) the Plaintiff could cancel the instant insurance contract on the ground of the violation of B’s duty of disclosure if there was no Defendant A’s illegal act; and accordingly, (b) the Plaintiff did not bear the duty of payment of the insurance proceeds for the instant accident

However, solely based on the circumstance that B was 52 years of age at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Plaintiff refused to enter into the instant insurance contract if it was aware of the actual occupation of B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. ② The Plaintiff’s damages cannot be found to be the total amount of payment insurance proceeds forming a quid pro quo relationship with the guaranteed insurance premium, and ③ there is high possibility that B would not have falsely notified the Plaintiff of his occupation without Defendant A’s illegal act, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the right to terminate the insurance contract due to the violation of the duty of disclosure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff suffered losses exceeding the scope of