1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On June 23, 2010, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded an insurance contract as indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant A as the insured on the premise that the amount of injury or disease hospitalization expenses of KRW 30,000 per day is guaranteed (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

② From September 27, 2010 to December 29, 2014, Defendant A hospitalized 242 days in total and claimed insurance money to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid KRW 12,580,000,000 in total as the daily amount of hospitalization, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was concluded by the Defendants for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts is null and void as acts contrary to good morals and social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. Defendant A is obligated to return the insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment under the instant insurance contract.

3. In the event that a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under 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.

On the other hand, even if there is no evidence to directly recognize that the policyholder entered into multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance proceeds, the policyholder's occupation and property status, and multiple insurance contracts.