[2] The validity of an insurance contract concluded for the purpose of fraudulent acquisition of insurance proceeds through a multiple insurance contract (negative)

[3] The case holding that an insurance contract is concluded for the purpose of an unlawful acquisition of insurance money, and is null and void against good morals and other social order

[2] In a case where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for such purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract. Moreover, the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingencyness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of many subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

[3] The case holding that the insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Code, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the conclusion of the insurance contract is aimed at preparation for a pure risk to life, body, etc. in light of the overall circumstances such as the occupation and financial status of the policyholder, the process of concluding a number of insurance contracts, the scale of the insurance contract, and the circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contract, and it can be confirmed that the insurance contract was concluded with

A. On August 20, 199, Nonparty 1, the father of the Plaintiff, entered into a contract with the Defendant for string child love comprehensive insurance (securities number: 689006912) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). Under the said insurance contract, the insured shall be the Plaintiff, and the insurance period shall be from August 20, 199 to August 20, 2014. The Defendant agreed to pay 20,000 won per hospitalization per day of hospitalization within the limit of 180 days from the date of the accident to the insured.

B. On September 15, 1999, the Plaintiff suffered from the right upper part of the upper part of the outer part of the case (hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case") and was hospitalized for 52 days from Sep. 15, 199 to Nov. 5, 199. Article 28 of the General Terms and Conditions of the insurance contract of this case provides that "the company shall promptly determine the insurance money and pay the insurance money within three days after receiving the notice of the occurrence of damages, and the insurance money shall be paid within 10 days from the date of issuance of the certificate of receipt. If the company receives the documents claiming the insurance money, it shall issue the certificate and pay the insurance money within 10 days from the date of issuance of the certificate of receipt. However, if it is evident that the period required for the investigation of damages and determination exceeds 30 days, the company shall notify the insured or the beneficiary of the reason and shall pay it within 30 days from the date of extinguishment (Article 28)."

2. The judgment of the court below

Based on the facts found above, the court below rejected the above defense on the ground that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 1,040,000 (20,000 x 52 days) and damages for delay corresponding to the 52-day portion of the insurance contract of this case, and as the non-party 1 entered into the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money, the insurance contract of this case is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. The contract of this case cannot be concluded to be null and void in light of the fact that the non-party 1 and his wife entered into multiple insurance contracts, and there is no other evidence to prove that the non-party 1 entered into the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

An act of anti-social order null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act not only goes against good morals and other social order, but also goes against social order by forcing the contents of rights and obligations which are the object of a juristic act to legally enforce it, or establishing social order conditions or monetary consideration to it, and includes cases where the motive of a juristic act indicated or known to the other party is anti-social order (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da56833, Feb. 11, 200; 9Da33311, Nov. 27, 2001; 99Da33311, Nov. 27, 2001; 2000; 300Da16949, Nov. 14, 200). In a case where an insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of denying the payment of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract made for this purpose would go beyond social reasonableness by encouraging unlawful profits through the abuse of insurance contracts, thereby impairing the rational distribution of risks, and impairing of social order.

In light of the records, if the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to have concluded the insurance contract of this case with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to have concluded the insurance contract of this case with the non-party 1 and to have executed the registration of ownership transfer on November 6, 199, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to have concluded the insurance contract of this case with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 for a total amount of 706,00,000 won, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to have concluded the insurance contract of this case with the non-party 9 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were to have concluded the insurance contract of this case with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to have concluded the insurance contract of this case with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to have concluded the insurance contract of this case 98 years.

In light of the above legal principles, considering all the circumstances such as the occupation and property status of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the process of concluding multiple insurance contracts, the scale of the insurance contract, and the circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contract, it is difficult to view that the non-party 1's conclusion of the insurance contract of this case is purely intended to cope with risks to life, body, etc., and it can be confirmed that the non-party 1 has concluded the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of unlawfully acquiring the insurance money by pretending the insurance accident or by exaggerationing the degree of the insurance accident, and thus, the insurance

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense that the insurance contract of this case was concluded for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money and thus null and void against the good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Code is erroneous by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of multiple insurance contracts and Article 103 of the Civil Code,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)