1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for this court's ruling are as follows, except for the addition of the "additional Judgment" portion of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 12, it is insufficient to deem that the instant insurance contract was null and void or that the Defendant intentionally committed long-term hospitalization in order to receive the insurance proceeds despite the need for hospitalized treatment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

Hospitalization is conducted not immediately once a patient so desires, but by determining whether a doctor in charge of actual treatment needs to be hospitalized and treated. Thus, if a doctor in charge decided to be hospitalized, it should be deemed that there was a need to be hospitalized unless there are special circumstances.

The Defendant received hospitalization based on the diagnosis received from multiple medical institutions as shown in the attached Table 2, and the actual physician of the Defendant, as an expert, shall respect each hospitalization based on the medical judgment, except in extenuating circumstances. Even if the period of hospitalization is longer than the ordinary period of hospitalization for the disease diagnosed by the Defendant, the necessity of hospitalization may vary depending on the patient’s health condition and the professional judgment of the doctor in charge, and the need of hospitalization cannot be uniformly determined based on the type of disease.

In fact, a direct diagnosis of the defendant is given to the defendant.