1. The insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2008, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff, which contains the content that guarantees daily allowances for hospitalization due to disease by making the Defendant the insured as the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) and paid the premium.

B. From July 24, 2008 to September 18, 2008, the Defendant commenced hospitalization at B Hospital as an ex post facto disease group during the 16-day period from that date to that of August 1, 2016, and was hospitalized 85 times in total as shown in the separate hospital hospitalization statement during the period from that date to August 1, 2016.

C. The Defendant claimed insurance money under the insurance contract of this case against the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing hospitalization, and the Plaintiff paid the insurance money totaling KRW 108,464,254 to the Defendant.

The insurance contract concluded with the defendant before and after the insurance contract of this case as the insured shall be as shown in the attached Table of the present status of insurance purchase.

E. The Defendant did not have reported income tax from 2006 to 2016, from 2007, and from 2009 to 2016, and reported income of 2,081,040 won.

[Reasons] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number if there are additional numbers), each entry, the Korean Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives, Yangyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Postal Information Center, Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and AIA Life Insurance Co., Ltd., as a result of the response of each order to submit financial transaction information to the company, the result of response to the order to submit tax information on leisure and life insurance by this court as a whole

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the insurance contract of this case was concluded for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, and thus is null and void in violation of good morals and social order under Article 103 of the Civil Code, and the defendant is obligated to return the insurance money received from

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine policyholder shall wrongfully acquire insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts.