1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On the basis of the conjunctive claim added at the trial, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the insurance contract of this case was concluded by the Defendant for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, and thus, is null and void in violation of good morals and social order stipulated in Article 103

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of invalidity of the instant insurance contract and restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the insurance money paid to the Defendant based on the said insurance contract.

B. Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds pursuant to the insurance contract concluded for such purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, thereby impairing the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

On the other hand, even if there is no evidence to directly acknowledge whether a policyholder has concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance proceeds, such purpose may be ratified based on the following circumstances, such as the occupation and property status of the policyholder, background leading to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, scale of the insurance contracts and circumstances after the conclusion

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12115, May 28, 2009). However, in full view of all the above circumstances, it is prudent to recognize the purpose of the policyholder’s wrongful acquisition of insurance proceeds.