보험계약무효확인 및 부당이득반환
1. It is confirmed that the insurance contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is invalid.
2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 29, 2005, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) as shown in attached Table 1.
B. The Defendant paid the occurrence of an insurance accident and the amount of insurance proceeds as shown in attached Form 2, for 1,170 days in total from November 21, 2005 to April 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant hospitalized treatment”), and received 65,368,738 won in total from the Plaintiff according to the instant insurance contract.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that the Defendant concluded the instant insurance contract with the aim of illegally acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, the instant insurance contract is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act. Since the Defendant received KRW 65,368,738 in total pursuant to the instant insurance contract null and void, it is obligated to return the said insurance proceeds and its delay damages to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) Preliminaryly, even if the instant insurance contract is not null and void, the Defendant was hospitalized in excess of the pertinent number of hospitalization days even though there is no need for hospitalization, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to return the hospitalization allowance or the expenses for hospitalization and its delay corresponding to the excessive number of hospitalization
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant subscribed to multiple insurance is merely to prepare for unexpected accidents or diseases, and does not intend to acquire insurance proceeds unlawfully.
Not only there are certain incomes, such as running business, but also because the defendant's repeated hospitalized treatment is due to the fact that the doctor in charge recommended hospitalization and the symptoms were not improved.