1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The defendant's grounds for appeal are not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court. Thus, the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court is recognized as legitimate, considering the evidence submitted in the first instance court as well as the evidence submitted in this court.

B. Accordingly, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except when using the first instance court’s sixth to the last one as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. 1) The insurer and the person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of the insurance contract as to whether the Defendant’s duty to clearly explain the exemption clause of this case is performed, when entering into the insurance contract, shall provide the policyholder or the insured with specific and detailed explanation and explanation of the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance product specified in the insurance contract and the reasons for exemption of the insurer’s liability. If the insurer entered into the insurance contract in violation of such duty to clearly explain and explain the insurance contract, the insurer may not claim the contents of the insurance contract as the content of the insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da38713, Oct. 28, 2005). It is difficult for the general public to easily expect that medical malpractice is not compensated for damage caused by the involvement in the process of external surgery, etc., and,

Only because each domestic insurance company has entered into an insurance contract by citing the above standardized terms and conditions, it can be deemed that the insurer is exempted from the duty to explain and explain on the ground that the matters are “matters that could have been sufficiently anticipated without any separate explanation because they are general and common in trade.”