after the filing of an appeal.

A. The court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court adds the judgment below to this part, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant insurance contract is purely intended to cope with risks to life, body, etc., and rather, it can be confirmed that it was concluded for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, which is contrary to good morals and other social order, as it goes against the law and order, on the following grounds: “The total number of hospitalization days from April 13, 2010 to September 19, 2014; the insurance proceeds paid by the Defendants from the Plaintiff as a total of KRW 26,48,984, as well as the insurance proceeds paid by the Defendants from the Plaintiff to the total of KRW 219,158,984.”

The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court is not different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if all of the evidences submitted in the first instance court and the evidences submitted in this court (as a result of fact inquiry about the head of this court's Health Review and Assessment Review Board, the result of the

2. The plaintiff's judgment on the conjunctive claim added by this court is based on the result of the request for the appraisal of medical records to the Seoul Medical Center, which was made upon the plaintiff's request, even though the insurance contract of this case is not invalid as the conjunctive claim in this court.