1. It is confirmed that the insurance contract described in the annexed Table 1 List between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void.

2. The defendant 50. 50.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant on June 30, 2005, and entered into an insurance contract on June 30, 2005, as listed in the [Attachment 1] List (Non-Distribution New-Sylle Health Insurance, hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

The main contents of the instant insurance contract are as follows: (a) the Defendant, the insured, is entitled to receive expenses for hospitalization of a disease (a general disease of KRW 50,000 per day, KRW 80,000 per day, KRW 10,000 for major diseases, and KRW 10,000 for

B. As indicated in the attached Table 2, the Defendant concluded the instant insurance contract with another insurance company (attached Form 8) and the insurance contract that is similar to its coverage content, etc., as indicated in the attached Table 2.

(hereinafter “each of the instant separate insurance contracts”) C.

From March 2007 to January 2014, the Defendant received KRW 50,164,345 (see, e.g., the result of inquiry into the Private Court Insurance Development Institute) under the pretext of hospital treatment, surgery expenses, and outpatient treatment expenses due to disease, including receiving insurance proceeds of KRW 50,164,345, as shown in the attached Table 3, from the Plaintiff’s insurance accident in the instant case.

(Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 21 through 23, fact-finding conducted by the Insurance Development Institute of this Court, the whole purport of arguments, and the purport of arguments.

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded the instant insurance contract with the intent to pretend the insurance accident through multiple insurance contracts or to unlawfully acquire the insurance money through exaggeration the degree of the insurance accident, and the instant insurance contract is null and void as a juristic act contrary to good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek to the Defendant for the confirmation of invalidity of the insurance contract of this case and the payment of the insurance money already paid, KRW 50,164,345, and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion that the insurance contract of this case and each separate insurance contract of this case are experienced in his life.