1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Attached Form 1. of the Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “O. 24, 2010. 0. 24, 2010.” in the second part of the judgment of the court of second instance shall read “O. 24, 2010.”

A. According to the first instance court’s decision No. 4, following the third instance court’s decision, the phrase “from October 24, 2010 to October 24, 2010, approximately 11 years and nine months past the date of the first instance court’s decision”; and on the same page, the phrase “from October 24, 2010 to December 24, 201” as the phrase “from October 24, 2010 to December 24, 2010.”

A. According to the first instance court’s decision No. 5, “one year and nine months” in the first instance court’s decision shall be “one year and eleven months”;

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following facts are as follows: "No evidence to acknowledge it exists" of the first instance court 4, and "no evidence to acknowledge it ( even if the defendant's breach of duty of disclosure is recognized, Article 651 of the Commercial Act provides that the insurer may exercise the termination of the insurance contract of this case due to the breach of duty of disclosure shall be limited to three years from the date on which the contract was concluded by the insurer, and the expiration period of the right to terminate the contract of this case shall be limited to the exclusion period. However, the fact that the plaintiff entered into the insurance contract of this case with the defendant on January 7, 2009 is recognized as above, and the fact that the plaintiff notified the termination of the insurance contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's breach of duty of disclosure by serving the application for the change of the cause of the claim on March 5, 2019 on the records is apparent. Thus, since the plaintiff expressed his intent of termination of the insurance contract of this case after three years from the date on which the contract was concluded with the defendant, it shall not be effective)."

3. Determination of the first instance court as above.