1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. Each insurance contract entered in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and the Selection A shall be July 4, 2016.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. In a case where a policyholder entered into an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would be out of social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts, as well as deviations from social reasonableness, and also destroying the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of many subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract shall be null and void in violation of good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as there is no evidence to directly acknowledge that 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: (a) even if there is no evidence to directly acknowledge such fact, such as the policyholder’s occupation and property status; (b) details leading to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts; (c) scale of insurance contracts; and (d) circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contracts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12115, May 28, 2009). However, solely on the grounds that the number of the insurance contracts is large, premiums and insurance proceeds are large, and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the insurance accidents, the motive

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da3311 delivered on November 27, 2001). B.

Judgment

In the first instance court's evidence, E-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-