Reference Non-Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongsan, Attorneys Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim H-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 24, 2015

1. It is confirmed that each insurance contract entered in the separate sheet concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is invalid.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,370,000 won with 20% interest per annum from October 31, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,370,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Conclusion of insurance contracts;

On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, the spouse of the Defendant, concluded an insurance contract listed in attached Table No. 1 with the Defendant as the insured, and thereafter, the policyholder was changed to the Defendant. On July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an insurance contract listed in attached Table No. 2 with the Defendant as the insured on July 21, 2010. On July 21, 2013, the insurance contract listed in attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) was renewed on July 21, 2013.

B. Occurrence of insurance accidents and payment of insurance proceeds to the plaintiff

On April 5, 2010, the Defendant was hospitalized for 15 days at ○○○ Council members with 15 days’ saltss, tensions, etc., and was hospitalized in each hospital for 151 days in total from April 5, 2010 to May 13, 2014 as indicated in the separate hospitalization. The Defendant was hospitalized for 10,370,000 won in total from the Plaintiff according to each insurance contract of this case.

C. Current status of conclusion of each insurance contract by the defendant, etc. and receipt of insurance proceeds

Among each insurance contract concluded with the defendant, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, who are the children of the defendant as the insured, it was concluded in 2010 with similar contents of guarantee and its nature. The insurance proceeds received from the defendant, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, including the plaintiff, due to the insured events mentioned earlier in accordance with each of the above insurance contracts, are as specified in the attached

(d) Property, income, etc. of the defendant, etc.

The amount of income and income reported by the defendant to the tax office from 2005 to 2010 are as follows, and the defendant paid automobile tax and property tax on the housing from 2005 to 2007, but no property tax has been imposed from 2008 to 2010.

Income amount for the business income of 205,415,363 4,872,922206 business income of 23,015,2207,761 207 business income of 5,710,500 earned income of 1,027,000 00 business income of 1,404,000 0 2000 business income of 1,040,0000 business income of 1,626,3221,3897

Non-party 1 reported to the tax office from 2005 to 2010 shall be as follows, and Non-party 1 shall pay automobile tax, etc. from 2005 to 2010, and no property tax shall be imposed.

income of 205 business income of 8,591, 399, 330, 206 business income of 1,691, 1660-209, which is an income of 2005 business income of 2005 business income of 8,591, 398, 2006 business income of 1,691, 1660-2009

There is no income or income amount reported by Nonparty 2 to the tax office from 2005 to 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 21 (including numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), each of the statements in this court's Algerz life insurance companies, MG life insurance companies, MG damage insurance companies, interesting fire and marine insurance companies, like fire and marine insurance companies, Dong department fire and marine insurance companies, ING life insurance companies, and AIG damage insurance companies, as a result of the response to each of the response to the submission of financial transaction information to Gwangju Metropolitan City, the response of each of the response to the submission of taxation data to Gwangju Metropolitan City mining areas, the purport of the entire arguments, as a whole.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party 1 and the defendant did not enter into each of the insurance contracts of this case in order to purely cope with risks to the life, body, etc. of the defendant, but entered into each of the insurance contracts of this case for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts. Accordingly, each of the insurance contracts of this case is null and void against good morals and other social order. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to return insurance proceeds received from the plaintiff

B. Determination

1) In a case where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds under an insurance contract concluded for such purpose would go beyond the social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract. Moreover, the insurance contract would be null and void against the good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, as well as undermining the purpose of the insurance system, destroying the contingency of risks, and causing the sacrifice of the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Meanwhile, such insurance contract shall be null and void against the good customs and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act. In the meantime, even if there is no evidence to directly recognize whether the policyholder concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of unjust acquisition of the insurance proceeds, such purpose may be ratified based on all the circumstances such as occupation and financial status of the policyholder, the process of concluding multiple insurance contracts, the scale of the insurance contracts, and the circumstances after concluding the insurance contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da

2) The following circumstances revealed from the above basic facts, namely, ① the defendant and his family members entered into 47 insurance contracts, which are similar to each insurance contracts of this case, including each of the insurance contracts of this case for one year 2010. In particular, 12 cases during the remaining period from February 24, 2010 to March 11, 2010; 13 cases during the remaining period from February 24, 2010 to March 31, 2010; 2. From July 14, 2010 to July 23, 2010, it is difficult to view that the defendant and his family members were to have entered into an intensive contract with 10 days from July 10 to July 23, 2010; ② it is difficult to find out that the defendant's family members were unable to enter into the insurance contracts of this case for 10 years with the highest amount of income from each of the insurance contracts of this case; ③ it appears to be difficult for the defendant's family members to enter into the insurance contract of this case as the above 27.

3) Thus, each insurance contract of this case is null and void in violation of good morals and social order. The defendant's interest in seeking confirmation exists. Since the insurance money that the defendant received from the plaintiff under each insurance contract of this case shall be returned to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment obtained without any legal ground. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10,370,000 insurance money paid to the plaintiff and damages for delay from October 31, 2014 to September 30, 2015, the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, to September 30, 2015, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter "Special Cases"), Article 3 (1) of the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26535, Sep. 25, 2015). 2015).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Mai (Presiding Judge)