1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2013, the Defendant concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff, an insurance company, as indicated in the attached Form, with respect to the Benz S600 vehicles owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “insured vehicles”).

B. After that, Nonparty D, who borrowed the instant vehicle from Nonparty C, the husband of the Defendant, caused a traffic accident on December 10, 2013, while driving an insured vehicle at around 02:10, which occurred on the underground street in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendant asserted that the insured vehicle was not repaired due to the foregoing accident, and demanded the Plaintiff to pay KRW 112,00,000 for its own vehicle loss as stipulated in the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 6 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s claim that the insurance contract of this case was concluded significantly in excess of the market price of the insured vehicle, which is the result of the Defendant’s fraudulent act, and is null and void under Article 669(4) of the Commercial Act

B. 1) Article 669(4) of the Commercial Act provides that a contract, if the insured amount substantially exceeds the value of the subject matter of the insurance contract due to the fraud of the policyholder, the contract shall be null and void. In a case where the insured party claims the restriction on the insurable value or the invalidation of the insurance contract on the ground that such excess insurance contract is an excess insurance contract, the burden of proof shall be borne by the insurer asserting the invalidity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu293, 2934, 2935, Feb. 9, 198). 2) First of all, the fraud of the insurance contract of this case, first of all, whether the insured amount significantly exceeds the value of the subject matter of the insurance contract, as to whether the insured amount clearly exceeds the value of the subject matter of the insurance contract, and as to whether the insured vehicle was released at the time of the delivery of the insured vehicle (excluding value-added tax) as of August 30, 2013.