2. An insurance contract entered in the separate sheet No. 1 concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B shall be classified.

A. The Defendants had lived before marriage and reported marriage on October 5, 2009.

B. As shown in the attached Form 1, an insurance policy (Evidence 1) regarding an insurance contract with the major content of the insurance company, the insured, the Defendant A, the policy holder, and the beneficiary from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 208, the insurance period of which is from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 208, as set forth in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

C. Defendant A based on the instant insurance contract, on February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff and the same month.

3. There shall be a axis;

In addition, it claimed the payment of insurance money such as the injury allowance, the disease hospitalization allowance, and the hospitalization allowance on the ground that the injury occurred, such as the base of salt, tension, etc. from the 7th to the 21st day of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was concluded with multiple insurance companies including the Plaintiff for the purpose of acquiring a large amount of insurance proceeds by pretending the insured incident or receiving a long-term treatment by exaggerationing the degree of the occurrence of the insurance accident. It is null and void as a juristic act contrary to good morals and social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act

Even if not, at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, Defendant A did not notify the important matters in entering into the instant insurance contract, such as falsely stating the relevant occupation, whether to subscribe to duplicate insurance, and the records of recent medical operations.

This constitutes grounds for cancellation of the contract under the latter part of Article 27 of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract or Article 110 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s insurance contract in this case is revoked through the service of a duplicate of

Therefore, the instant insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is not effective, and the Plaintiff is based on the instant insurance contract to the Defendant A.