The insurance system complements the state-run social insurance system and provides economic stability to the people. However, the insurance system is characterized by contingency, gambling, and goodness, and the people are constantly in dispute for various reasons such as not understanding the system properly. The most important theory among them is the highland duty system. Even if you are embarrassed or do not want to be informed, you should notify the insurer of important matters related to risk assessment. Major countries in the world are required by law to require passive response to obligation. In our case, we do not yet have a passive reply requirement. Nevertheless, in some cases, insurance contractors have declared that they can not be regarded as a breach of obligation duty because they did not answer what they did not ask in case they did not know what was important. The number of cases where an insurance contract is concluded by telephone is also increasing. At that time, questions about the implementation of the obligation shall be verbalized. However, if the word speed is fast, the dispute occurs if the policy contractor does not answer properly. When you sign an insurance contract by phone, let the telemarketer know that it will be recorded. It is true, however, to actually ask questions at a certain rate. However, a major reason for surgery is that it is reasonable to make a notice by taking a break, such as by stopping the telemarketer's speech. In the case of insurers who have to conclude a large number of insurance contracts, it is necessary for the insurer to promptly notify the insurer of the obligation to take notice of the obligation. Sanctions should be avoided. Right maxillary malignant ameloblastomas and iliac transplant surgery are important issues, and since telemarketers have asked if they have undergone surgery, they should be noted that they have properly fulfilled their obligation obligations. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the High Court has finally violated the obligation to disclose the obligation. In the case of Germany, where the obligation to notify the obligation is abstract, it is not an abstract question, and the interpretation of the question should be interpreted favorably to the policy contractor. In Germany, some comprehensive questions are inevitable for institutional operation. However, it is necessary to ensure that the pace of the speech is not too fast when the insurance company employee or telemarketer is educated, and that the policy contractor can accurately recognize the pronunciation. In the meantime, it is also questionable whether the insurer can recognize the gross negligence because it has not been notified to another insurance company’s information. In this case, it is a question of how much insurance company is sharing the information. If the information is being shared, there is no reason to acknowledge the insurer's grave fault for not knowing. In addition, some of the lower courts have approved the insurance information system of the Insurance Development Institute as a gross negligence. However, in general, it is not allowed under current law to verify information from other insurance companies because of the protection of personal information. Therefore, it can not be said that there is a serious fault to the insurer because it can not confirm the notice to the other insurer. In the case of Germany, even in the case of information of a company in a concession relationship, it is stipulated that it will be possible for the information to be specifically inquired so that it can recognize the gross negligence of the insurer of this insurance company with the unconfirmed information. The judgment of the Seoul High Court, which is the subject of the review of Eagle in relation to the claim of the insured party that has already notified the other company, is justified in this section. In the case of trade insurance, it is desirable to consider only the gross misstatement rather than the problem of the life of the policyholder. It is also necessary to shorten the period for trade insurance, as it is January in the case of private insurance that it is possible to terminate the violation within three months from the annulment. In other words, in trade insurance, it is desirable to go similar to the disclosure obligation system of private insurance.