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

A. On March 12, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant as indicated in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The said insurance contract includes matters as security for the payment of the daily amount of hospitalization when the insured is hospitalized due to illness or injury.

B. From September 11, 2010 to September 24, 2010, the Defendant received hospital treatment from C on the ground that he/she exceeded his/her house bath, from around that time to August 19, 2016, the Defendant received hospital treatment for one day and 360-day hospital treatment (hereinafter “instant treatment”) for 20 times due to knenee-paculty, kne-free knee-culing knee-cule tyrosis, in a congenital chromosome, etc., and received hospital treatment for 37,730,547 won in total from the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 37,680,547 per hospitalization day).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff concluded multiple insurance contracts with similar coverage before and after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and received the insurance money by repeatedly receiving hospitalized treatment due to a temporary disease for which hospitalization is not necessary.

Therefore, the insurance contract of this case was concluded for the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance money under the circumstance of the insurance accident, and is null and void against the good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Code.

B. In addition, the Defendant violated the duty of disclosure by responding to the Plaintiff’s question confirming that there was no such fact even if it had existed prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and the Defendant concluded an insurance contract that covers the same or similar risk as the instant insurance contract.

C. As can be seen, the instant insurance contract is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act or should be terminated in violation of the duty of disclosure under the Commercial Act. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the insurance money received from the Plaintiff due to the return of unjust enrichment.