1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 19, 2008, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff with the same content as the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). From September 2008 to March 2012, the Defendant received hospitalized treatment for 280 days during the period from around 2008 to March 2012, and received total KRW 17,190,667 from the Plaintiff as insurance proceeds.

On the other hand, the current status of insurance concluded by the defendant and the details of insurance money received based thereon are as shown in attached Table 2.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul life insurance company (hereinafter referred to as "stock company") in this court, KDB life insurance, AI insurance, damage insurance, LG fire insurance, Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance, Eastern Life Insurance, Oriental life insurance, Eastern life insurance, researchG life insurance, PCA life insurance, agricultural cooperatives life insurance, AIA life insurance, ACE fire and marine insurance, results of an order to submit information on financial transactions for veterinary life insurance, results of this court's inquiry about the fact-finding of the Health Insurance Corporation, the whole purport of arguments, and the whole purport of arguments.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not have economic ability, and he received at least KRW 188,84,851 as a result of continuous and semi-refensive hospital treatment for reasons of disease, such as receiving at least 169 days of hospital treatment for 169 days on 12 occasions after he purchased an intensive insurance policy within a short time, such as entering into ten insurance contracts only for 2008, even though he did not have sufficient economic capacity. This is because the defendant unfairly acquired insurance money by entering into multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money, the insurance contract of this case is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff sought restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 17,190,667 of the insurance money paid to the Defendant under the instant insurance contract, and confirmation of the invalidity of the instant insurance contract.