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

A. The Plaintiff is a company running an insurance business, such as life insurance, disease insurance, and accident insurance.

B. On June 9, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Defendant. Under the terms and conditions of the said insurance contract, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 90,000 per day when the insured is hospitalized into three major diseases, KRW 60,00 per day when he/she is hospitalized into six major adult diseases, and KRW 30,00 per day when he/she is hospitalized into ten major adult diseases.

C. From March 5, 2007 to January 9, 2013 after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Defendant hospitalized 32 times in total for 642 days, and received insurance proceeds of KRW 44,676,38, in total from the Plaintiff, on 32 occasions, due to cerebral connection, climatic signboard escape symptoms, and ropitis.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 5 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was concluded with multiple insurance companies for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds by entering into multiple insurance contracts and being hospitalized for a long time, although there is no need for hospitalization, constitutes a juristic act contrary to good morals and social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, it is confirmed that the insurance contract of this case is null and void, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 44,676,388 won and delay damages.

3. Determination

(a) Where the policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds under the insurance contract concluded for this purpose would not only be in excess of social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, but also be a reasonable diversification of risks.