부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1- 3 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence No. 1.
On October 23, 2000 to February 4, 2008, the Plaintiff (Seoul Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.) concluded each insurance contract with the Defendant or the Defendant’s husband listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the separate insurance contract” according to the sequences in the same list, and the general term “each of the instant insurance contracts” was referred to as “the instant insurance contracts”).
B. As shown in the attached Table 2, the Defendant received hospitalization for 710 days in total from around December 29, 2008 to around March 24, 2015 on the ground of an accident, such as inception in mountain, etc., and on 45 times in total due to an inception in front of the check, etc., and received hospitalization for 710 days from around March 31, 2009 to March 30, 2015, and received KRW 123,43,114 from the Plaintiff to March 30, 2015.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the party’s assertion (1) concluded each of the instant insurance contracts for the purpose of unlawfully acquiring the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds, and subsequently received false or unjust hospitalization for an accident or disease that does not require hospital treatment, and on this ground, the Plaintiff acquired total KRW 123,433,114 from the Plaintiff as the insurance proceeds.
Therefore, each of the instant insurance contracts is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 123,433,114 to the Plaintiff.
(2) Defendant 1 and 2 insurance contracts were concluded between B and B on October 23, 200 by the solicitation of their mutually-friendly insurance solicitors. Defendant 3 and 4 insurance contracts were concluded by B or the Plaintiff upon the solicitation of the insurance solicitor around August 16, 2007 and February 4, 2008, and there was no intention to unlawfully acquire insurance proceeds.
In addition, the defendant from around 2008 to knee-cosia, etc. three times.