1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the traffic accidents described in paragraph 1 of the attached list, it is listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list.

1. The reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not explain the terms and conditions of the instant commercial transport exemption to Defendant A.

However, as seen next, the defendant cannot argue against the plaintiff that the plaintiff cannot claim the validity of the exemption clause for commercial transport.

In full view of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 10 through 13, the insurance development director of the court of first instance, the president of the court of first instance, Hyundai Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the results of each order of submission of documents and arguments to the lot damage insurance Co., Ltd., in around May 30, 2005, there was an accident that the defendant leased and operated a leased vehicle around May 30, 2005, which caused the accident that occurred from the parking lot and did not compensate for the accident that occurred from the commercial transport contract at the time. The defendant A had been working as a large-scale executive officer or a driver of P Co., Ltd. for several years, while serving as an accident, and had experience in dealing with the insurance accident. The defendant A entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Qkkn's vehicle as the insured and stated the "Co., Ltd. (A)" as the "Co., Ltd.'s automobile price" before entering into the contract with Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.