2. It is confirmed that the insurance contract entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is null and void, and that there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the insurance money to Defendant 1 in relation to the above insurance contract.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

A. The Defendants had lived before marriage and reported marriage on October 5, 2009.

B. As shown in the attached Form 1, an insurance policy (Evidence 1) regarding an insurance company’s insurance contract with the Plaintiff, the insured, the policyholders, and the beneficiary, Defendant 2, and the insurance period from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 208, whose major coverage is expenses for hospitalization for injury, hospitalization for disease, etc. (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) is written.

C. On February 22, 2013, Defendant 1, based on the instant insurance contract, filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the payment of insurance proceeds, such as the amount of injury, daily allowance for hospitalization, and amount of hospitalization daily allowances for disease, on the ground that Defendant 1 suffered injury, such as salt, tension, etc. of the outer side side of the same month after having been hospitalized for 15 days from the 7th to the 21st day of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant insurance contract was concluded with Defendant 2 for the purpose of acquiring large amount of insurance proceeds by pretending an insured incident or receiving a long-term treatment in excess of its degree after concluding multiple insurance contracts with multiple insurance companies including the Plaintiff. As such, it is null and void as a juristic act contrary to good morals and social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Even if not, at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, Defendant 1 did not notify important matters in entering into the instant insurance contract by falsely stating the fact about his occupation, whether to subscribe to duplicate insurance, and recent medical treatment and surgery records. This constitutes grounds for cancellation of the instant insurance contract under the latter part of Article 27 of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract or Article 110 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s insurance contract is revoked by serving a duplicate of the

Therefore, there is no validity of the instant insurance contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, and the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the insurance money based on the instant insurance contract to Defendant 1.

B. The defendants' assertion

Since the parties to the instant insurance contract are not Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of invalidity of the instant insurance contract is without merit.

In addition, the insurance contract of this case cannot be deemed null and void in light of the fact that there is no involvement in the external circumstances, such as provisional attachment or clinical auction before the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, the extent of the insurance contract cannot be deemed excessive in light of the frequency and period of the insurance contract concluded by the Defendants, and that there is no record of criminal punishment as litigation fraud, and the interval between the date of conclusion of the contract and the date of the first accident. Four insurance contracts, which had been subscribed before 2007, were joined in the special power headquarters (hereinafter “special power headquarters”), against the risks of occupational injury of Defendant 1. Two insurance contracts, which had been subscribed around November 201, for the performance of the above Defendant 2, which had been an insurance solicitor at the time, were subscribed at Nonparty 1’s recommendation. The two insurance contracts, an insurance solicitor, and the remaining six insurance contracts, as well as the details of hospitalized treatment, were properly treated as a result of the occurrence of injury or disease during the normal living process. The insurance contract of this case was insufficient at the time of the insurance contract of this case.

In addition, the latter part of Article 27 of the Clause of the Insurance Contract of this case provides that the contract may be cancelled only in the case where the contractor or the insured passes the diagnosis procedure by means of proxy diagnosis or drug taking advantage of the diagnosis, or the company proves that the contract has been concluded by an obvious fraudulent intent, such as hiding and joining the diagnosis before the date of forgery, alteration or subscription, etc. Therefore, the mere violation of the duty of disclosure does not constitute a ground for revocation. Furthermore, in the case of termination due to the violation of the duty of disclosure, the short-term exclusion period under Article 651 of the Commercial Act is set for the safety of transaction, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize cancellation by Article 110 of the Civil Act solely on the ground that the violation of the duty of disclosure

3. Whether the insurance contract of this case is valid

A. Issues and criteria for judgment

First of all, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the parties to the instant insurance contract are only Defendant 1, but not Defendant 2, and that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking nullification of the insurance contract between Defendant 2 and the Plaintiff cannot be accepted. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the contracting parties are Defendant 2 in the current legal relationship that is recognized as benefits of confirmation, as stated in the insurance policy (Evidence A No. 1) regarding the instant insurance contract of this case as Defendant 2. As such, it is reasonable to view that the contracting parties are Defendant 2 in terms of the current legal relationship that is recognized as having been recorded as Defendant 2. However, this part of the Defendants’ dispute cannot be accepted (the Defendants asserted to the effect that the initial contracting parties were Defendant 1 but that they were transferred to Defendant 2, but even according thereto, there is no change in the fact that the present contracting parties are Defendant 2).

Meanwhile, in a case where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, requiring the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for such purpose would go beyond the social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, and also undermine the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of the majority of the insured, thereby impairing the basis of the insurance system. Such insurance contract is null and void against the good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. In this case, even if there is no evidence to directly recognize the existence of multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of unjust acquisition of the insurance money, such purpose may be ratified based on all the circumstances such as the occupation and financial status of the policyholder, the process of concluding multiple insurance contracts, the scale of the insurance contract, and the circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005). Therefore, the key issue of this case is that the insurance contract was made for unjust acquisition of the insurance contract, and thus null and void.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged as a whole when there is no dispute between the parties, or as a result of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 18, Eul evidence of No. 1 through 5 (including the number with each number), as a result of the court of the first instance's response to the order of submission of taxation data on Ansan Tax, as a result of the order of submission of financial transaction information to the said fire and marine insurance company, and the whole purport

1) Defendant 2 concluded 12 insurance contracts between September 2005 and November 2010 with Defendant 1 as the insured between the Plaintiff and the insurance company including the Plaintiff (However, the insurance mentioned in the No. 2-1 No. 5 was concluded in the name of Defendant 1), and the aggregate of the monthly insurance premium is KRW 889,450, and the monthly insurance premium of the insurance contract concluded by the end of December 2008, is KRW 54,650 in total.

2) Meanwhile, Defendant 2 also concluded 12 insurance contracts between January 2005 and June 2009 between the Plaintiff and the insurance company including the Plaintiff as the insured (However, the insurance mentioned in the attached Table 2-2 No. 2-2 was concluded in the name of Nonparty 1, who is the mother of Defendant 2, and the insured is Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and the above Defendant) and the total monthly insurance premium is KRW 781,090, and the monthly insurance premium is KRW 675,090,090, by December 2008, for which the instant insurance contract was concluded.

3) Monthly insurance premium of the instant insurance contract is KRW 65,00. Of them, the guaranteed part is KRW 47,650, and the accumulated part is KRW 17,350. Insurance money under each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet No. 2-1 that Defendant 1 as the insured is able to be paid in duplicate. In the event of Defendant 1’s hospitalization, the insurance money to be paid is KRW 320,000 per day of injury, KRW 420,00 per day of disease, and KRW 350,000 per day of injury when Defendant 2 is hospitalized.

4) From 2005 to 2010, the amount of the income and the amount to be paid by the Defendants reported in the Ansan Tax Accounting Book having jurisdiction over the Defendants’ residential places are as follows:

Defendant 13,734,00 23,738,020 17,162,410 225,910 4,1204,1208,678,722 - Defendant 2- 2,678,722 - 23,684,000 -684,000 16,127,245 23,701,70 17,6834,0023,73,738,738,0238,0207, 209, 2009 (won) in 2008 (won), 2009 (won)

The amount to be paid for the income tax contained in the main sentence, 205 (won) 2006 (won 2007) 2008 (won 2009) - Defendant 1-141, 230 142, 360 03,90 54,540 (won 201) - Defendant 2- 053,570 135,260 total 0141,230 142,360, 470 189,8000

5) Nonparty 1, an insurance solicitor, who recommended the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, concluded a periodically with the insurance company including the Plaintiff from September 199 to September 2010, and maintained 14 insurance contracts on the basis of November 2013, 2013. The sum of the premiums was set at KRW 768,040 per month. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 seeking confirmation of invalidity of the insurance contract on December 12, 2013 with the Jeonju District Court Branch 2013No. 1040, the judgment dismissing the claim was handed down on December 12, 2013, and currently, the appellate court continued to remain in the appellate trial as the Jeonju District Court 2013Na44377.

6) Defendant 1 prepared a written notification (Evidence A No. 2) at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and indicated in the column of “no” as to the question, “I will purchase an insurance policy that covers the same or similar risk as that of the instant insurance company,” but at the time, the said Defendant purchased an insurance policy listed in Appendix 2-1 or No. 1 or No. 27, and accordingly received insurance money over several times as indicated in the separate sheet 1 or No. 27. After claiming insurance money based on the instant insurance contract, at the time of the investigation of the employee in charge of the instant insurance contract, Defendant 1 stated that “I knew of the fact that two contracts were concluded, but I knew of the accurate situation of the contract.”

7) Furthermore, in the above notice statement, the above defendant puts a mark on the column of "no" for all questions: "I have been diagnosed by a doctor within the latest three months through a medical examination and examination, or as a result, treatment, hospitalization, surgery, or medication, within the recent five years," and "I have been hospitalized, conducted, or conducted a close examination, for at least seven days, or for at least 30 days, or for at least 30 days." However, the above defendant was 14 days from January 15, 2007 to April 29 of the same year at the side 14 days from the left sular sular fever, and from February 22, 2007 to April 13 of the same year, 51 days from the sular sular sular salke-ro, and from June 20 to July 28, 2008 to 30 days from May 20, 2008.

8) 피고 1은 2007년경까지 특전사 ◈공수여단에서 의무부사관으로 근무하였고, 2007. 12.경부터 2010. 5.경까지는 서울 강남구 소재 ‘○○○○○’라는 상호의 중고차 매매업체에서 근무하였으며, 2010. 11. 5.부터 2011. 9. 1.까지는 삼성생명보험주식회사에서 보험설계사로, 2011. 7. 1.이후로는 쌍용자동차주식회사 ♤♤♤♤영업소에서 과장으로 근무하였다. 그러나 위 피고는 이 사건 보험계약 체결 당시 위 고지서면에 자신의 직업을 ‘부동산마케팅 총무사원’으로 기재하였고, 이 사건 보험계약에 기한 보험금 청구 후 원고 담당직원의 조사 당시에는 ‘보험가입 당시 업체명은 기억나지 않으나 총무사무원으로서 자재관리·사무업무를 담당했었으며 현재는 휴대폰 온라인 쇼핑몰을 위탁운영한다’고 진술하였다.

9) Based on the insurance contract listed in attached Table 2-1, Defendant 1 received insurance proceeds of KRW 53,335,860 in total from each insurance company on the grounds of various insurance accidents between June 5, 2006 and February 26, 2013, as shown in attached Table 3.

10) After the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, Defendant 1 received hospitalized treatment over 10 times as follows. Defendant 1 did not claim insurance money based on the instant insurance contract even if having received insurance money from other insurance companies. On February 22, 2013, Defendant 1 claimed insurance money based on the instant insurance contract only on the last accident.

본문내 포함된 표 년도 입원기간 치료기관 병명 관련 증거 2009 5. 25.~6. 4.(11일간) △△△정형외과의원 허리뼈 염좌, 긴장 갑 11-40, 41 등뼈 염좌, 긴장 양측 발목 염좌, 긴장 갑 13-25 10. 7.~10. 20.(14일간) □□의대 ◇병원 괴저성 농피증 갑 11-46, 48, 50 10. 29.~11. 9.(12일간) □□의대 ◇병원 아래다리의 열린 상처 갑 11-47, 49 피부결손 2010 2. 6.~2. 23.(15일간) △△△정형외과의원 목뼈, 허리뼈, 기타 갑 11-61, 62 무릎 부분 염좌 및 긴장 9. 13.~10. 2.(20일간) ☆☆☆☆한방병원 허리뼈 염좌 및 긴장 갑 11-65, 67 2011 3. 8.~3. 22.(15일간) △△△정형외과의원 경추, 요추, 발목 염좌 및 긴장, 좌측 발목 타박상 갑 11-72, 73 갑 13-18 갑 14-4, 5 6. 13.~7. 2.(20일간) ▽▽▽▽병원 식도염, 설사 동반한 자극성 장증후군 갑 11-78, 79 갑 13-13 2012 4. 23.~5. 3.(11일간) ◎◎한의원 요추 염좌, 긴장 갑 11-84, 85 갑 14-13 무릎 타박상 갑 15-13 5. 7.~5. 21.(15일간) ◁◁◁의원 요추 통증, 요추 척추병증, 경추통 갑 11-89, 90 갑 13-6 2013 2. 7.~2. 21.(15일간) ▷한방병원 외측측부인대 염좌, 긴장 갑 11-95, 96 요추 염좌 및 긴장 갑 13-2 발목 부분 염좌 및 긴장 갑 14-14

11) 피고 1은 2007년 특전사에서 근무할 때까지는 익산시 또는 군산시에서 거주하였으나, ○○○○○에서 근무한 2008년경 이후 현재까지는 서울 중랑구 면목7동, 인천 남구 용현동, 안산시 상록구 사1동 등지에서 거주하였다. 그런데 위 10)항의 각 입원치료기관 중 ☆☆☆☆한방병원, ▽▽▽▽병원, ◎◎한의원, ◁◁◁의원, ▷한방병원은 모두 군산시에 소재하고 있다.

(c) Markets:

(4) In light of the above facts, Defendant 1’s total insurance premium of KRW 54,650 per annum and KRW 80 per annum for 60-1 insurance contracts and KRW 80 per annum for 60-1 insurance contracts and KRW 80 per annum for 60-1 insurance contracts and KRW 60 per annum for 60-1 insurance contracts and KRW 80 per annum for 60-1 insurance contracts and KRW 60 per annum for 60-1 insurance contracts, respectively, for which Defendants 1 and 2 did not claim that the total insurance premium of KRW 60 per annum for 60 per annum for 60-1 insurance contracts were less than annual average insurance premium of KRW 60 per annum for 60 and KRW 50. The Defendants did not claim that the total insurance premium of KRW 250 per annum for 60 and KRW 50 per annum for 60 per annum for 60-2 insurance contracts.

In full view of the above circumstances, the instant insurance contract may be sufficiently ratified as being made for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds in light of various circumstances, such as the occupation and property status of the policyholder, the background leading to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, the scale of insurance contracts, and the circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant insurance contract is null and void against the good customs and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, as it harms the purpose of the insurance system, destroys the contingentness of risks, and causes the sacrifice of the majority of the insured, thereby undermining the foundation of the insurance system. (Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s primary assertion was admitted, it is not further determined on the Plaintiff’

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the insurance contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is null and void, and there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay insurance money to Defendant 1 based on the above insurance contract, and there is no benefit of confirmation in the instant case where the Defendants asserted the validity of the instant insurance contract and the obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance money based thereon.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition after cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting all the plaintiff'

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-seok (Presiding Judge)