1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded each of the non-payment of the medical care insurance (registration number B, hereinafter “B”) and the non-payment of the securities (registration number C, hereinafter “B”) with the insured as the insured.

(The above two contracts are referred to as "each of the contracts of this case"). (b)

From April 17, 2009 to May 7, 2014, the Defendant received hospital treatment for approximately 759 days due to the same injury, disease, etc. as indicated in the following table, and received insurance proceeds for each of the treatment from the Plaintiff.

D E G F ADH F G / 【Ground of recognition / The fact that there is no dispute. 2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant insurance contracts is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act, because the Defendant concluded each of the instant insurance contracts with the intent to illegally acquire insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts.

Where 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 go beyond the social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, as well as going against the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness 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 the good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. As to whether a policyholder has concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money, even if there is no evidence to directly recognize it, it is against the policyholder’s occupation and financial status, the date and circumstances of