An insurance contract is a long - term contract. Therefore, it is important to pay the premium continuously. However, if the insurer fails to pay the premium in the middle, the insurer may terminate the contract at once. In this case, there is a resurrection of the insurance contract as a system to revive the insurance contract when the termination refund is not returned even though it was canceled. There are many disputes concerning the resurrection of this insurance contract. The obligation to explain the terms at the time of resurrection, the obligation to observe the obligation is a problem, and in the case of cancer insurance, the waiting period of 90 days is also a problem. In the case of resurrecting an insurance contract, in principle, the obligation to explain the terms is recognized and measures are required to fulfill the obligation to prevent reverse selection. In the court case, the guarantee period starts from 24:00 on the day of payment of the insurance premiums, but the 90-day waiting period of the cancer insurance is different from the Commercial Act Article 656, It is said that a separate explanation is required. In the Supreme Court's judgment, the 90-day waiting period for cancer insurance is different from the general provisions of the Commercial Act, which sets the time for the commencement of liability, which is the important content of the insurance contract for which the insurer has a detailed and detailed explanation obligation, And the insurance contractor can not be expected enough without any explanation. In case of resurrection of the insurance contract, it is also necessary to explain the important contents. Of course, you do not have to explain if the policy contractor knows the content well. In the case of A's dispute, which is the subject of review in this article, the insurer recognizes that the commencement date of the liability for cancer-related collateral in the revival subscription will be effective only after the period specified in the relevant clause has elapsed since the resurrection date. However, it is difficult to assume that the insurer's detailed explanation obligations have been fulfilled only by receiving such handwritten signatures. Therefore, in this case, it should be considered that the waiting period for posting the guarantee in the light of the purpose of the related Supreme Court precedent is difficult to claim as the content of the insurance contract. In other words, in the case of cancer diagnosis during the waiting period, insurance money. Compared to Germany, Germany has a problem of waiting period. It is characterized by the fact that the maximum amount of waiting period differentiated by insurance item is prescribed in the law and the regulations are made as the forced enforcement of the area. The provisions of the Commercial Act and other contents shall be explained separately in the case of the waiting period. It is difficult to say that a detailed explanation has been made simply because it is written on the resurrection application form and has been signed by him. In addition, it is necessary to prescribe the waiting period as a prestigious term in the commercial insurance section in the long run. In addition, considering Article 656 of the Commercial Code, it is difficult to recognize the negligence of the policyholder and allow for the negligence of offsetting in the case of the non-disclosure period. In trade insurance, the application of the resurrection system is possible. However, the actual trade insurance policy stipulates payment of delinquent premium in connection with cancellation of contract. Both the insurer and the contractor should check the problem in the resurrection of the insurance contract in advance and make efforts to resurrect the insurance contract without any defect.