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 may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), together with the whole purport of the pleadings:

On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with C, the Defendant’s mother, as an insured person, as specified in the [Attachment I] List, with the Defendant’s mother.

B. As shown in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 4, the Defendant received from around February 10, 2012 to February 20, 2016, throughout 354 days in addition to being hospitalized for 15 days on the ground of disease, such as kne-free kne, disguised infection and maritis, live and chinitis, and hume base, and on the ground of disease, and from around March 14, 2012 to around January 5, 2015, after being hospitalized for five times on five occasions on the ground of disease, such as physiological pain, cold, gale, gale, and tension, and pain of snow, and received from the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 40,546,15 won (i.e., hospitalization expenses 23,403,936, 138, 1301, 309, 309).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) concluded the instant insurance contract with C for the purpose of unlawfully acquiring insurance proceeds, and subsequently obtained false or unjust hospitalization or outpatient treatment with respect to an accident or disease that may not be hospitalized or treated, and accordingly, acquired total KRW 40,546,155 as above from the Plaintiff on the ground of this reason.

Therefore, the instant insurance contract is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

(B) In addition, even though there are three cases prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, C violated the duty of disclosure by making it known to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant insurance contract, even though it was only one case to have subscribed the said insurance to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is therefore.