1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2005 and September 30, 2005, the Defendants were married with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant C concluded each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff as the insured and with the content of guaranteeing the hospitalization cost as the insured.

B. From January 31, 2007 to January 28, 2014, Defendant B received hospital treatment for a total of 523 days, as shown in the attached Table 2 list, and claimed insurance money, such as hospital allowances, to the Plaintiff.

C. Under the instant insurance contract, the sum of the insurance proceeds that Defendant B received from the Plaintiff before the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract was changed to Defendant C on April 21, 2010 reaches KRW 29,450,788, and the sum of the insurance proceeds that Defendant C received thereafter reaches KRW 22,243,420.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute exists, the purport of Gap's statements or the whole pleadings as set forth in Gap's 1 to 5

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds, and ought to be deemed null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Act

Therefore, the Plaintiff confirmed the invalidity of the instant insurance contract against Defendant C, and at the same time sought the return of each insurance amount received from the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts, and not only would it undermine the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroy the contingentness of risks, and cause the sacrifice of many subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract is governed by Article 103 of the Civil Act.