1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning which the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance trial is examined, the judgment of the first instance court dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. The judgment of the first instance court, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. The first instance court’s judgment of the third part of the third part of the judgment of the first instance as follows: “I undergo the diagnosis of the first day of the first instance judgment” was used as “I undergo the diagnosis of the evidence of the first instance judgment, etc. at the E hospital located in Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, on December 2, 2015, undergo the diagnosis of the evidence of the first instance judgment, etc. at the E hospital located in Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.” The fifth part of the upper part of the first part of the judgment of the first instance as follows: “A 1, 2, 6, 3, 3, 7, 17-1, 3, 17-1, 1, 3, 1, 7-1, 7.

The following shall be added between the fourth and seventh parts of the first instance judgment:

In addition, in order to establish a violation of the duty of disclosure in an insurance contract, the duty of disclosure must be intentionally or by gross negligence, and the gross negligence referred to in this context is known to the fact that the duty of disclosure is to be notified, but it is not known that the decision of the importance of the fact is erroneous or that the fact is an important fact to be notified due to a significant negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da38663, Nov. 29, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da38663 (Counterclaim); 38670 (Counterclaim); etc.).] On the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, the term “15:00” was added to the term “15:0”, which is a symptoms that continued one month prior to the 15:00 month anniversary of the internal members of the insurance contract, against the condition that “the 15

The grounds of the first instance judgment are as follows.

2.(b)

2) The part of the judgment of the court of first instance in the part of paragraph (c) is dismissed from the judgment of the court of first instance from 17 to 7.