1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The day following the last day of receiving the insurance money as requested by the plaintiff as of the last day of receiving the insurance money" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is added to "the day after the last day of receiving the insurance money," "the losses for delay" of the 9th day as "legal interest or delay damages", and "the day from November 1, 2014 to the right side of the 6th day" ( insofar as the defendant concluded the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money as mentioned above, it is reasonable to see that the defendant is a malicious beneficiary under Article 748 (2) of the Civil Act)" of the 7th day of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to "the day after the last day of receiving the insurance money as requested by the plaintiff," and it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The court’s additional determination (the Defendant’s assertion) did not determine whether the instant insurance contract was null and void on the grounds of circumstances following the conclusion of the insurance contract, such as that it concluded six short-term insurance contracts around June 2008 even though it was concluded around June 206.

[Judgment] As to whether a policyholder has concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance proceeds, the purpose of such agreement may be ratified based on all the circumstances, including the policyholder’s occupation and property status, the time and circumstances leading up to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, the scale and nature of the insurance contracts, and the circumstances after the conclusion of insurance contracts

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da69170 Decided April 30, 2014). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the circumstances after the conclusion of an insurance contract cannot be considered in determining the invalidity of an insurance contract is merely an independent opinion and cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.