보험에관한 소송
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant's argument is added to
Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.
2. The further determination of this Court
A. After a divorce around 1998, the Defendant, on its own initiative, concluded a number of insurance contracts including the instant insurance contracts in 2010 in preparation for occurrence of future diseases as a result of D’s solicitation, an insurance solicitor who raised two children and was well aware of it, and the nature of the insurance policy was not well aware of the gender-sensitive coverage of savings.
In addition, the defendant had sufficient means to pay the insurance premium at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case by lending the name of the birth and operating a health center, etc., and there is no fact that the defendant intentionally caused an insurance accident or received hospitalized treatment by exaggerationing the symptoms.
Therefore, the insurance contract of this case is valid, and the insurance money that the defendant received from the plaintiff is also justifiable in accordance with the insurance contract of this case.
B. (1) Determination (1) Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance proceeds through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds under an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would not only lead to deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust benefits by abusing the insurance contract, but also would also undermine the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroy the contingency of risk occurrence, and cause the sacrifice of the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system.
Therefore, such an insurance contract is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Code.
In addition, a number of policyholders are intended to acquire insurance money unlawfully.