손해배상(기)
1. We confirm that the insurance contract entered in the list between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void.
2. The defendant.
1. On March 27, 2009, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff on the basis of the facts. On July 2, 2009, between July 2, 2009 and August 17, 2015, the Defendant claimed insurance proceeds based on the instant insurance contract to the Plaintiff after being hospitalized for 915 days on 48 occasions under the name of the disease, such as sofeat, bonesal ppuri frisome, sedebrate, sedebral vertebrate, and the escape certificate of the verted side signboard, streke, streke, and streke, etc. < Amended by Act No. 9150, Mar. 27, 2009>
Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum totaling KRW 25,290,000 as insurance money.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 48 (including the case of additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Defendant did not conclude the instant insurance contract for the purpose of coping with the risk to life, body, etc., but concluded the instant insurance contract for the purpose of fraudulently acquiring insurance proceeds by pretending the insurance accident or by exaggerationing the degree of the insurance accident.
Therefore, the insurance contract of this case shall be deemed null and void in violation of good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act. The defendant has a duty to return to the plaintiff the insurance money of 24,840,000 won (25,290,000 won for the insurance money paid by the plaintiff, or 24,840,000 won for the amount for which the plaintiff claims the return of the insurance money by the lawsuit of this case) and damages for delay as unjust enrichment.
B. The defendant does not conclude the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of improper acquisition of insurance proceeds, and the monthly insurance premium is at the level sufficient for the defendant.
3. In a case where a policyholder entered into an insurance contract with a view to unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, the relevant legal doctrine on determining the invalidity of the instant insurance contract is applicable.