부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In order to unlawfully acquire insurance money without economic ability to pay the insurance money, the Defendant alleged that the content of the instant insurance contract is similar to or overlapping with the content of the instant insurance contract, and received false or excessive hospitalized treatment for a considerable period of time due to disease that can be treated solely on the basis of outpatient treatment, and received KRW 78,576,075 from the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the insurance contract of this case is null and void because it violates good morals and other social order, and the defendant must return the above insurance money unjustly to the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and each reply to the order to submit financial transaction information issued by this court, it is recognized that the defendant, on October 12, 2001, entered into an insurance contract with C Co., Ltd. with himself as the insured on October 12, 201, and maintained 18 insurance policies up to 2,360,471 won including the instant insurance contract as of the date of the closing of argument as shown in the attached Table, including the fact that the defendant received hospitalized treatment for 935 days between August 24, 2010 and January 12, 2015; the fact that the defendant received total 349,712,623 insurance proceeds from the insurance company, including the plaintiff, as described in the attached Table.
B. However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts alone concluded the instant insurance contract for the purpose of the Defendant’s wrongful acquisition of insurance proceeds in light of the fact-finding results on the Minister of Health and Welfare of Gwangju Regional Headquarters of the National Health Insurance Corporation and the overall purport of the arguments in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including additional numbers).
It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff was hospitalized treatment due to lack of reasonableness and legitimacy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
① The Defendant on July 16, 2009 and the instant case.