보험계약무효확인등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In order to unlawfully acquire insurance money without economic ability to pay the insurance money, the Defendant alleged that the content of the instant insurance contract is similar to or overlapping with the coverage of the instant insurance contract, and received false or excessive hospitalized treatment for a considerable period of time due to disease that can be treated solely on the basis of outpatient treatment, and received insurance money from the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the insurance contract of this case is null and void because it violates good morals and other social order, and the defendant must return the above insurance money unjustly to the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers) and the response to the order to submit financial transaction information of this court, it is recognized that the defendant, as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, maintained six insurance including the insurance contract in this case as shown in the attached Table, as the insured as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, and that the defendant, upon receiving 402 days from June 28, 2009 to December 2, 2015, received 71,426,306 won from the plaintiff, and received considerable amount of insurance proceeds.
B. However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts alone concluded the instant insurance contract for the purpose of the wrongful acquisition of insurance proceeds by the Defendant in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the entries of the above evidence as well as the evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including additional numbers) as well as the response to the order to submit taxation information regarding the net taxation duty of this court.
It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff was hospitalized treatment due to lack of reasonableness and legitimacy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
① At the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Defendant had maintained four insurance as described in the attached Table, but the insurance listed in the attached Table 4 was already made on May 19, 2006, prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract.