부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. According to the selective claims added by this court, the defendant 1,140.
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is that the court’s reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the “1. Recognizing facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance is rewritten or added as follows. As such, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
In addition, the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance " October 16, 2014" shall be deemed " October 21, 2014."
The second part of the judgment of the first instance added the following "(hereinafter referred to as "the details of hospitalization of this case")" in the second part of the judgment of the first instance.
In the third sentence of the judgment of the first instance, "6,235,300 won" shall be deemed "62,235,300 won" in the year of 2013 to which the academic year belongs.
The following shall be added to the third (which is the ground for recognition) of the first instance judgment:
E. The final judgment of the relevant criminal case became final and conclusive on the ground that “the Defendant received the insurance money by means of a peril insured against the fact that he/she received the treatment of hospitalization at AB from August 1, 2013 to August 19, 2013” constitutes the act of receiving the insurance money through false or exaggerated hospitalization.
(Seoul District Court 2015No4223, Gwangju District Court 2016No970, Supreme Court 2016Do12935). The hospitalization period of No. 8 in the attached Form 2 of the first instance judgment is as follows.
The judgment on the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the insurance contract and the claim for return of unjust enrichment from August 1, 2013 to August 19, 2013, the hospital name AB, from August 1, 2013 to August 19, 2013 to August 26, 2013 to September 11, 2013, the ADB, from September 27, 2013 to October 2, 2013.
A. The plaintiff's assertion does not purely conclude each of the insurance contracts of this case to cope with risks to his own life, body, etc., but concluded each of the insurance contracts of this case for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts. Thus, each of the insurance contracts of this case is null and void against good morals and other social order. The defendant is each of the insurance contracts of this case.