부당이득금
1. The insurance contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is invalid.
2. Defendant A.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company running an insurance business under the Insurance Business Act and related Acts and subordinate statutes.
On April 6, 2010, Defendant B entered into an insurance contract with Defendant A as the insured and beneficiary (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
B. As indicated in Table 1 from September 6, 2010 to December 1, 2012, after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, Defendant A (B before the opening of name: C) received hospital treatment for 294 days in total, as indicated in Table 1, on eight occasions, and received KRW 5,920,000 from the Plaintiff during the period from November 22, 2010 to February 28, 2013.
(1) On September 20, 2010, the number of days of the date of hospitalization of an hospital for treatment of the No. 1 D Hospital is 1 D Hospital (the number of days of hospitalization of the hospital is 1 D Hospital, which is 1 D Hospital on September 6, 2010, and the number of days of hospitalization of the hospital for treatment of the No. 1 D Hospital is 2 E Hospital on September 15, 2010, and the number of days of hospitalization of the hospital No. 3 D Hospital for 3D Hospital on November 13, 2010 (the number of days of hospitalization of the hospital No. 4 E Hospital No. 14 on February 14, 201; the same shall apply to the above 6.15 on March 31, 2011; the number of days of infection No. 5 F Hospital infection 5 on April 16, 2011); and the number of days of 7.15 on July 26, 2016>
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s alleged Defendants did not enter into the instant insurance contract in order to purely cope with risks to life, body, etc., but entered into an insurance contract with the purpose of unlawfully acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts. Thus, the instant insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, Defendant A is liable to return the insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. Defendant B’s assertion is subject to the guarantee of the instant insurance contract.