1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant as a non-distribution car, and paid a total of KRW 69,830,190 to the Defendant according to the content of the insurance contract.

However, the defendant received the insurance money by being hospitalized for a long time beyond the general common sense under the name of the sick who need the treatment of hospitalization, such as the main blood pressure, knee persium, and acute persium infection, etc. The defendant seems to have concluded multiple insurance contracts other than the plaintiff and received the insurance money. The insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be deemed null and void in violation of good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, and therefore, the defendant shall return the insurance

B. Determination 1) Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract with an intention to illegally acquire insurance proceeds through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would result in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts. Moreover, the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of a large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Such insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005). However, it is only asserted by the Plaintiff in the instant case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant concluded the insurance contract with the Plaintiff for the purpose of denying insurance proceeds.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, B, the Defendant’s children, around September 2006, is the Plaintiff and the insured.