1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

1. The grounds for entering this case by the court of the first instance, which cited the judgment, are as follows: ① the whole of the 3-B (10-14) out of the written judgment of the first instance (10-10-14) shall be deleted; ② the defendant’s assertion is as follows:

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. (1) As to the violation of the duty to notify, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not explain to the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract on the duty to notify under Article 26(1) of the instant insurance clause, and thus, the effect of Article 26(1) of the instant insurance clause cannot be asserted to the Defendant.

In addition, even if the plaintiff explained to the defendant as to such duty of notification, the defendant was temporarily driving for repair while he was the owner of the deceased father C, who was the deceased father C.

Therefore, the defendant does not bear the duty of notification under Article 26(1) of the Insurance Terms and Conditions or Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act.

(2) (A) If the policyholder or the insured becomes aware of a significant change in or increase in the risk of the occurrence of an accident during the insurance period, he/she must, without delay, notify the insurer.

(Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act provides, “The fact that the risk of the occurrence of an accident is significantly changed or increased” refers to the fact that, if there exists any change or increase risk at the time of entering into an insurance contract, the insurer did not conclude the contract or at least would have not subscribed to the insurance premium.

(B) The facts acknowledged and adopted by the first instance court, which cited earlier, as well as the evidence, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 8 and 11, the fact-finding response to the F Hospital of this Court, and the outcome and arguments of the fact-finding response to the F Hospital of this Court.