1. It is confirmed that the insurance contract entered in the attached Form 1 insurance contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is null and void.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant A entered into an insurance contract as indicated in the attached Table 1 Insurance Contract containing the details of guarantee that daily allowances are paid in the event of being hospitalized due to disease or injury as the insured, and Defendant B, who is Defendant A’s infant during the insurance period of the above insurance contract, acquired the status of the Defendant A’s policyholder.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract,” regardless of whether or not the policyholder has changed. (b)

From August 8, 2005 to April 6, 2012, Defendant A was the insured of 16 insurance contracts including the instant insurance contract as shown in attached Table 2.

C. After the conclusion of the instant insurance contract on May 28, 2009, Defendant A was hospitalized in C regularly Over fourteen (14 days) with the salted share of the instant insurance contract on May 28, 2009. Defendant A received hospital treatment for 869 days until November 29, 2016 on the ground of the cruptism, bones salt of wood, conical salt, etc. as indicated in the attached Table 3 A customer payment list. Defendant A received KRW 19,560,557 from the Plaintiff as insurance money under the instant insurance contract during the said period.

[Reasons for Recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each order to submit financial transaction information to the Korean Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives, Hansung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and interested fire and marine insurance Co., Ltd., and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the parties concerned had concluded the instant insurance contract with the intention of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts. The instant insurance contract is null and void since it is a contract contrary to good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

In concluding the instant insurance contract, Defendant A falsely notified the Plaintiff as to whether he/she purchased other insurance policies with similar coverage. As such, the Plaintiff terminated the instant insurance contract.