1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) whether the exception to the exemption is recognized" under Section 6, Section 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) whether the exception to the exemption is recognized" under Section 10, Section 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) whether the “indemnent theory” under Section 10, Section 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as the “indemnent theory,” respectively; and (d) the Defendant added the following judgments concerning the matters alleged in the appellate court under Section 10, Section 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and

2. Additional matters to be determined

D. 1) In accordance with Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions on the part of the Defendant’s assertion, the insurer is obligated to explain the important and detailed contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the system of insurance premium rates, changes in the entries in the written subscription, and the insurer’s exemption from liability, which are contained in the insurance contract. Thus, if the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of such duty to explain, it cannot be asserted as the content of the contract. In this case, the policyholder or his agent must prove that he sufficiently explained the contents of the contract. The Plaintiff failed to perform the duty to explain the specific and detailed contents on the exemption under subparagraphs 3 and 4 of Article 15 of the General Terms and Conditions at the time of entering into the insurance contract in this case. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim the content of Article 15 subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the General Terms and Conditions as the content of the insurance contract cannot be viewed as being exempted, and therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the insurer the total insurance amount of KRW 250 million and damages for delay.