1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 12, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant B, and agreed to pay insurance money according to the insurance terms, such as payment of KRW 20,000 per day of hospitalization when the Defendant A, the insured, suffers physical injury or is hospitalized due to disease due to an unexpected accident during the insurance period, and payment of KRW 1,00,000 per day of hospitalization when receiving surgery for 16 major diseases.

B. The Defendants entered into an insurance contract with multiple insurance companies with the policyholders or the insured as shown in the separate sheet No. 2, in addition to the instant insurance contract with mother and child relationship.

C. On October 17, 2011, the Defendant received insurance money from each insurance company as a result of repeated hospitalization and discharge for 36 days starting after receiving a diagnosis of light spatitis, spatitis, spatitis, etc. due to traffic accidents. The Defendant received insurance money from each insurance company. The Defendant received KRW 22,023,276 in total from the Plaintiff under the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (if there are numbers, including all of the numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 evidence, the court's Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., LIG damage insurance Co., Ltd., MIG fire and marine insurance company, new life insurance company, new life insurance company, and KB damage insurance company, the purport of the whole arguments as a result of fact-finding.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not a conclusion of the instant insurance contract with the intent to obtain unjust monetary profits using the insurance system, but rather a conclusion of the instant insurance contract with the intent to obtain unjust monetary profits in order to ensure the uncertainty of the future about himself/herself or the Defendant A, and thus, the instant insurance contract is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

In addition, as long as the insurance contract of this case is null and void, defendant A received insurance money from the plaintiff under the insurance contract of this case.