계약무효확인 및 부당이득반환
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,355,740 as well as to the plaintiff on December 2014.
1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Before entering into the instant insurance contract, the Defendant received medical treatment and hospitalized treatment on a regular basis due to high blood pressure, blood transfusion, cerebrovascular color, and other brain-related diseases. This constitutes a case where an insurance accident had already occurred before entering into the instant insurance contract, and thus, the instant insurance contract is null and void pursuant to Article 644 of the Commercial Act. (2) At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the insurance accident had been caused by blood pressure, etc., and the Defendant did not claim insurance money against the Plaintiff even when receiving insurance money from another insurance company due to high blood pressure, etc., but began to claim insurance money against the Plaintiff only after October 18, 2013, which was after the limitation period for the termination of the insurance contract due to the violation of the duty of disclosure and the limitation period for the cancellation of the insurance contract
The defendant predicted that the acceptance of the insurance contract of this case will be refused due to his medical history, and concluded the insurance contract of this case by deceiving the plaintiff without notifying his medical history for the purpose of unfairly acquiring the insurance money by abusing the exclusion period of the termination of the insurance contract due to the violation of duty of disclosure and the exclusion period of the cancellation of the insurance contract on the ground of fraud. Thus, the insurance contract of this case is null and void in violation of the good morals and other social order stipulated in Article
3) Since the Defendant received insurance money from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, it is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment. (B) Whether it is null and void pursuant to Article 644 of the Commercial Act, Article 644 of the Commercial Act, “the insured event occurred or has already occurred at the time of the insurance contract.”