1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: ① The reason for the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① the term “foreign currency life insurance” stated in the “insurance company” column 5 to 7, among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, as “foreign currency life insurance”; ② The ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the further determination as to the Plaintiff’

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant insurance contract is a juristic act with respect to matters contrary to good morals and other social order, and is null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

In addition, according to the insurance contract of this case which is null and void, the defendant has received 20,135,637 won as insurance money from the plaintiff without any legal ground, and thus, it should be returned.

B. (1) As to the legal act whose content violates good morals and other social order, the burden of proof must be proved by the assertion that the contract is null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

(2) However, in full view of the facts acknowledged and adopted by the first instance court as seen earlier and the following circumstances revealed by Gap evidence No. 12, it is insufficient to recognize the instant insurance contract as a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act only with the evidence submitted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion premised on this cannot be accepted.

(A) On October 2009 and November 2009, the written offer submitted by the Defendant when entering into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff or AIA life insurance company (in the case of a corporation for convenience, the portion of the corporation’s name is not stated separately) shall include the Defendant’s average monthly income of KRW 10,000.

However, the Meter Pln report prepared by S, which is an employee in charge of the AIA life insurance, is a restaurant operated by the defendant.