2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 4, 2008, Defendant B concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff and the insured as Defendant A as indicated in attached Table 1.

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). (b)

On December 24, 2014, Defendant A requested Defendant A to pay the insurance money to the account in the name of Defendant B, on the ground that the insured incident on the left-hand side occurred.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 3

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract is difficult to be seen as purely against risks to life, body, etc., and concluded by Defendant A for the purpose of unfairly allowing Defendant B to acquire insurance proceeds, and thus, is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

The Defendants are claiming insurance money based on the instant insurance contract, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation of its invalidity. The Defendants are unjust enrichment, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff totaling KRW 24,138,726 and delay damages.

Even if the insurance contract of this case is not invalid, Defendant A is not required to be hospitalized, and received daily allowances for hospitalization from the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant A is obligated to return 121 days (the period calculated by the rate of 54 days which is assessed as excessive hospitalization period out of 135 days of hospitalization with medical records) which appears to be excessive hospitalization period of 30,000 won per the day of hospitalization or 1620,000 won per the day of hospitalization amounting to at least 54 days of hospitalization as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. In the event that a policyholder entered into an insurance contract with intent to illegally acquire insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, it is unjust to have the insurance proceeds paid under the insurance contract concluded for this purpose.