[2] In a case where Gap entered into a 11 insurance contract with multiple insurance companies including Eul and received insurance money from Eul on the ground of hospitalized treatment, etc., and Eul demanded the return of insurance money on the ground that the insurance money was null and void in violation of good morals and other social order, the case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle, etc., on the ground that it is sufficient to view that Gap entered into a multiple insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition

1. Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds pursuant to the insurance contract will be deviating from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, and the purpose of the insurance system, such as rational diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Such insurance contract is null and void against the good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act. In addition, as to whether a policyholder concludes a multiple insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds, such purpose may be confirmed based on all the circumstances such as the policyholder’s occupation and financial status, the timing and nature of concluding the multiple insurance contracts, the scale and nature of the insurance contracts, and the circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1215, May 28, 2009). In particular, the circumstances leading to the conclusion of an insurance contract with a large number of insurance solicitors’s reasonable reasons to receive insurance premiums.

2. As indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order, solely on the following grounds: (a) the fact that the Defendant entered into 11 insurance contracts with the Plaintiff, including the instant insurance contract, and on the grounds of hospitalized treatment, etc., that the Plaintiff, etc. received insurance money under each of the above insurance contracts; (b) it is difficult to deem that the monthly insurance premium under 11 insurance purchased by the Defendant is excessive compared to ordinary cases; (c) the Defendant appears to have economic burden to pay the insurance premium under each of the above insurance contracts; and (d) the circumstance after the Defendant was hospitalized or hospitalized for more than the pertinent period of hospitalization because of somewhat exaggeration of the symptoms of the disease, it is difficult to readily conclude

3. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below.

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following circumstances are revealed.

1) The Defendant alleged that, while residing in 007 to 2012, residing in 00,000 won located in the north-gu in Busan ( Address omitted) of the Republic of Korea, intangibles had attempted to perform the right to demand the payment of the insurance premium, and had the income of KRW 1.5 million or KRW 2 million per month as remuneration. However, there is no objective material to acknowledge such income, and even if a certain amount of income was obtained, it seems to have been an irregular, and there is no other property to be used for paying the insurance premium. Accordingly, the 11 insurance premium, including the instant insurance contract, which exceeds KRW 453,530 per month, shall not be considered to have been excessive to the Defendant.

2) From July 13, 2009 to July 13, 2010, the Defendant concluded 11 same insurance contracts including the instant insurance contracts, and concluded two insurance contracts with two insurance companies on July 13, 2010 on a day. However, even upon examining the record, the Defendant does not seem to have reasonable grounds for entering into multiple insurance contracts within a short period, and further, only two of the eleven insurance contracts were concluded by the solicitation of insurance solicitors, and all of the remainder were concluded by the Defendant’s active measures.

3) On August 13, 2010, immediately after the conclusion of the instant last insurance contract, the Defendant began to claim and receive insurance proceeds on the ground that he/she was hospitalized for a period from August 24, 2010 to August 23, 2010, following the conclusion of the instant last insurance contract, and received insurance proceeds from the commencement of hospitalization and discharge for about two years thereafter. Accordingly, the number of hospitalization from August 24, 2010 to September 26, 2012 is 11; total duration of hospitalization is 229 days; total amount of insurance proceeds received from such hospitalization is 141,36,02 won; in light of ordinary circumstances, the Defendant’s number of hospitalization and the period of hospitalization is considerably frequent, and the insurance proceeds received from the Defendant is excessively excessive.

4) Meanwhile, the Defendant subscribed to only one insurance with respect to the items of medical room expenses, which are proportional compensation, as known with respect to proportional compensation and duplicate compensation. In the remainder of the instant insurance contract, etc., excluding intentional ones, and purchased an insurance policy, for which duplicate compensation such as daily allowances during the period of hospitalization is intensively guaranteed. In addition, most of the above insurance policies subscribed to by the Defendant appears to have a strong nature of security insurance than the nature of savings insurance. However, there is no substantial reason for the Defendant, who did not have received only non-regular revenues, to subscribe to the majority of security insurance.

5) Furthermore, on February 8, 2010, the Defendant had already subscribed to seven same types of insurance prior to entering into the instant insurance contract with the Plaintiff, but did not notify the Plaintiff of the subscription except for one insurance related to medical expenses items.

B. Considering the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, such as the Defendant’s financial status, background leading up to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, size and nature of the insurance contract, and circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contract, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s conclusion of the instant insurance contract is purely intended to cope with risks to life, body, etc., and rather, there is sufficient room to deem that the Defendant concluded multiple insurance contracts with the intention of unfairly acquiring

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the insurance contract of this case is null and void in violation of good morals and social order. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on multiple insurance contracts and Article 103 of the Civil Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)