1. The part of the claim for nullification of an insurance contract among the judgment of the first instance, and the following:

money to order payment under subsection (1).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 13, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract indicated in attached Form 1 with Defendant A and the insured as Defendant A (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). From March 13, 2013 to April 9, 2013, the policyholder was changed to Defendant B.

The above insurance contract includes the payment of daily allowances for hospitalization when the insured is hospitalized due to illness or injury.

B. From November 28, 2008 to December 30, 2008, Defendant A received hospitalized treatment for 33 days from C Hospital as “a fluoral fluoral escape certificate, conical signboard disability,” and at that time, Defendant A was hospitalized for 890 days in total as shown in attached Table 2, for a total of 54 times, as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Under the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants the total amount of KRW 2,754,00,000 to the Defendants, and paid the Defendant A the insurance amount of KRW 19,030,000 and KRW 8,510,00 to Defendant B.

The details of the payment of the insurance money are as shown in attached Form 3. D.

Details of the insurance contract concluded with the defendant A as the insured, and insurance money paid due to the above defendant A's hospitalized treatment are as shown in attached Form 4.

Insurance proceeds confirmed as above are KRW 343,914,919 in total.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 13, 14 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul life insurance, Hanyang life insurance, Hanyang life insurance, AIG damage insurance, Hansung life insurance, Hansung life insurance, KDB life insurance, KDB life insurance, response to each order to submit financial transaction information on Mez marine insurance, the whole purport of the arguments, as a result of the response of the first instance court's order to submit financial transaction information

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the insurance contract of this case was concluded by the Defendants for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, and is contrary to good morals and other social order.