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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On September 10, 1998, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an insurance contract "C insurance (special agreement for non-payment)".

B. From January 18, 2010 to March 19, 2010, the Defendant hospitalized 61 days from the members of the D periodical branch, from January 18, 2010 to March 19, 201, and 41 days from March 22, 2010 to May 1, 2010, and filed a claim for insurance proceeds with the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she received an operation on February 3, 2010 and April 23, 2010. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 8,038,214, and KRW 1,859,412 on May 17, 201. < Amended by Act No. 10320, Jan. 19, 2010; Act No. 10083, Jan. 27, 2011>

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each description of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was actually hospitalized during the period from February 4, 2010 to March 1, 2010; from March 26, 2010 to March 28, 2010; from April 5, 2010 to October 10; and from April 28, 2010 to April 34, 2010, all of which were hospitalized during the period of 102 days (i.e., 6141).

Therefore, the defendant should return the insurance money received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination ① At present, the defendant denies the contents of the police interrogation protocol (No. 6) against the defendant.

Examining the above interrogation protocol, the defendant responded that he did not leave the hospital during the period of 102 days of hospitalization, and that his body continued to be hospitalized in the hospital even after the operation was conducted, and that he responded to the record of the place of escape, the date of flood, and the date of physical therapy, and argued that the written statement on the date of discharge in the place of physical therapy is false.

Considering these circumstances, even though there are answers showing some facts of suspicion in the suspect interrogation protocol, it is difficult to view them as evidence that the defendant was hospitalized only for 34 days.

② There is no content that the Defendant was hospitalized only for 34 days in the police officer or suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against D, E, or F (Evidence A to 10 through 13).

(3) A defendant.