1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 40,700,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the amount from November 8, 2017 to February 9, 2018.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) on the D vehicle owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) in the insurance period from March 10, 2017 to March 10, 2018, the insured as Defendant B (However, it was included in Defendant B’s driver) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. The insurance clause of this case contains the following contents:

Article 44 (Obligation to Notify before the contract) (1) When a policyholder makes an offer, he/she shall inform an insurance company of the fact that he/she knows the following matters, and in case of subparagraph 3, he/she requires the consent of the registered insured

2. Matters concerning the insured motor vehicle such as the use, model, registration number, name of chassis, annual formula, loading quantity, structure, etc. of the insured motor vehicle: Article 53 (Cancellation of Insurance Contract by Insurer) (1) Any insurance company may terminate the insurance contract within one month from the date it becomes aware of the occurrence of any of the following cases:

However, the termination of a contract under subparagraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall not apply to mandatory insurance.

1. Where a policyholder fails to notify, intentionally or by gross negligence, of the fact that he/she knows matters provided for in Article 44 (1) when he/she concludes an insurance contract, or provides false notification;

C. Around 02:20 on April 27, 2017, Defendant C caused an accident that shocks the central separation unit and the right diver (hereinafter “instant accident”) while driving a two-lane of the part located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. (hereinafter “S. accident”). The instant vehicle was disseminated due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle and intended to run the act of commercial transport (i.e., running a call).