1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Case summary

A. On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff A entered into a contract with the Defendant for “F” (hereinafter “instant insurance”) and “G” (hereinafter “G”) as the insured. The instant insurance contract is subject to an agreement with respect to the guarantee of cancer diagnosis and cancer operation expenses, and the instant insurance contract No. 2 is subject to a special agreement for the guarantee of disease death. (2) On June 2018, 2018, the Deceased was diagnosed as the “malinal incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary incinary inc

3) The Plaintiffs, the inheritor of the Deceased, filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of each of the instant insurance proceeds in accordance with each of the instant special agreements. However, at the time of each of the instant insurance contracts, the Defendant terminated each of the instant insurance contracts on the ground that the Deceased violated his/her duty to inform the Deceased of treatment and administration for chronic liver infection and urology, even though there was a history of treatment and administration for chronic urology. The Defendant refused to pay the insurance proceeds on the ground that the Deceased violated his/her duty to notify it. 【Ground of recognition’s absence of any dispute, A’s evidence Nos. 1

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. On the grounds delineated below, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant is obligated to pay the insurance proceeds stated in the claims according to their inheritance shares to the plaintiffs.

① Even if the deceased’s existing disease was not so serious that it was not notified at the time of the insurance contract, it is difficult to view that there was intentional or gross negligence on the policyholder or the deceased; ② there was no causal relationship between the above existing disease and the deceased’s malicious life occurrence; ③ It was impossible to hear an explanation on the terms and conditions of the contract that the insurance contract may be terminated or the payment of insurance money may be refused on the ground of a breach of duty of disclosure at the time of the conclusion