1. It is confirmed that an insurance contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that runs a life insurance business upon obtaining permission from the Financial Services Commission.

B. On August 13, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant as the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). Under the said insurance contract, the Plaintiff requires the Defendant to pay the surgery allowance per time in the event of surgery due to the insured’s disease or disaster, the amount of hospitalization allowance per day exceeding three days in the event of hospitalization due to disease, and the amount of nursing benefits per day exceeding thirty days and per ninety days in the event of hospitalization, respectively.

C. After entering into the instant insurance contract, the Defendant hospitalized a total of 585 days from November 27, 2007 to April 4, 2013, and received three times of surgery, and received insurance proceeds of KRW 33,280,698 on a total of 31 occasions from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was concluded with multiple insurance companies for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds by entering into multiple insurance contracts and being hospitalized for a long time, although there is no need for hospitalization, constitutes a juristic act contrary to good morals and social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

3. Determination

A. In a case where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing insurance contracts, and also would undermine the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingencyness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of many subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract goes against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.