Hyundai LF Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheong, Attorneys Kim-Hy et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Seo-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 22, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Ra93310 Decided October 31, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25,637,955 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order of this case to the day of complete payment.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 8, 2006, the Defendant concluded a lifelong guarantee insurance contract (securities number omitted; hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff (Seoul Green Cross Life Insurance Co., Ltd.).

B. From May 16, 2006 to September 30, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 25,637,955 from the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds on the grounds that the Defendant had been hospitalized, performed surgery, etc. over 33 occasions.

C. The Defendant did not have paid the earned income tax and the comprehensive income tax from 2005 to 2009.

D. Similar insurance contracts that the Defendant subscribed to as the insured before and after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract are ten cases as listed below, and the monthly amount paid as insurance premium is KRW 464,000.

3 East Life Insurance Co., Ltd. 206-02-08 65,200 won 206-136,700 won 3 East Life New-Beder Policy 2006-02-136,650 won as of July 12, 2006, 4Ra 606-206-02-136, 650 won for monthly insurance premium of 1 gold 206-136, 306-136, 130, 106-2-136, 930 won for non-distribution of life, 206-207, 2006-8, 2006-4, 306-7, 1306-13, 16, 930 won for Samsung F&F insurance 2006-147, 1460 won for interest 206, 2008.

E. From August 14, 2006 to August 31, 2006, the Defendant filed a false claim for insurance money on the ground that he was hospitalized in Korea Sungdong Hospital without being hospitalized, and acquired 900,000 won from the Geumho Life Insurance Co., Ltd. from February 17, 2009, and filed a false claim for insurance money as if he had not been hospitalized as shown in the annexed crime list, and filed a false claim for insurance money as if he had not been hospitalized from February 17, 2009. This judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

F. Of the above convictions, the part related to the Plaintiff is as follows: ① (a) was hospitalized with the Masung on the ground of diagnosis on August 14, 2006 on Sep. 25, 2006; (b) was hospitalized with the Matern Hospital on the ground of the Matern on Sep. 25, 2006; (c) was hospitalized with the Matern Hospital on the ground of the Matern Matern on the ground of the Matern Matern on June 27, 2007; (d) was hospitalized with the Matern Hospital on the ground of the Matern Matern on the ground of the diagnosis on September 20, 208; and (e) was hospitalized with the Matern 205 on the ground of the Matern Matern Matern 144 on Oct. 11, 2008; and (e) was hospitalized with the Matern 2015 on the ground of the above Matern 2015 on the 201.25 on the diagnosis.25.

[Reasons] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, and the court of first instance, the National Tax Service, the National Tax Service, the Linna Life Insurance, the Eastern Life Insurance, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The insurance contract of this case is concluded by the defendant for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, and is null and void against good morals and other social order. Thus, since the insurance money paid by the defendant from the plaintiff who did not have the obligation to pay insurance money constitutes unjust enrichment, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff.

(b) Markets:

Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through a large number of insurance contracts, requiring the payment of insurance proceeds pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for such purpose would go beyond the social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts, as well as hindering 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. 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). With respect to whether a policyholder concludes a large number of insurance contracts for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds, the purpose thereof may be ratified based on all the circumstances, such as occupation and financial status of policyholders, background leading to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, scale of insurance contracts, and circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da121515, May 28, 2015).

As to the instant case, the Defendant, who had no global income tax before and after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, concluded ten insurance contracts between approximately six months, and KRW 3,510,42, which the Defendant received five times of insurance money 25,637,955, which the Defendant subscribed to 333 times, was found to have been guilty of fraud because it was found that there was no hospitalization or surgery, and that the Defendant was found guilty of fraud. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the facts and arguments, i.e., the Defendant alleged that the Defendant was working at a restaurant at the time of the instant insurance contract, namely, (i) it is difficult to conclude that there was no income tax and comprehensive income tax from 2005 to 209; (ii) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not have any income of the Defendant; and (iii) it is unreasonable to acknowledge that there was no lack of sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had entered into the instant insurance contract in light of the fact that there was a lack of sufficient proof to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s insurance contract or its chronic impairment of insurance terms and conditions.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as it is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Il-il (Presiding Judge)